Are the Ica Stones evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted?

The Ica Stones, as they are often called, are a collection of engraved stones from the Ica region of Peru. To be fair, many stones are produced in other parts of Peru as artwork, but the Ica Stones are the most famous because of their depictions of dinosaurs, heart and brain transplants, maps, and telescopes.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

In an evolutionary worldview, it is extremely unlikely that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, so it is generally a forgone conclusion that any stone that depicts humans riding dinosaurs is modern. There is no room to consider the authenticity of the Ica Stones (specifically those depicting extinct animals). This article from the Skeptic’s Dictionary, for example, which has been quoted all over the internet, is the typical response of skeptics to the stones. Alas, the author of the article did very little research, and most of the information in the article regarding the stones is wrong.

Dr. Stephen Meyers wrote a reasonable article on the stones, and while he did not see any of the stones, he went out of his way to research their authenticity by contacting experts on the stones. He did not come up with much information on the stones themselves, but the other evidence he uncovered gave him reason to doubt the stones’ authenticity.

Christopher Johnson wrote another article on the stones and actually went to see a collection of the engraved stones held in Pensacola, FL. While he points out the reasons that the stones could be real, he is not ready to vouch for their authenticity until further research has been done.

A little over a year ago, I was able to visit the Museo de Piedras Grabadas (Engraved Stone Museum) in Ica, Peru. The year before that, I was able to visit at least one person that supplied the museum with stones. (We visited two stone suppliers—I suspect that the other stone supplier we visited also sold stones to the museum.)

I learned several things that make me seriously doubt the authenticity of virtually all of the stones in the museum.

The first is the “patina” mentioned in the articles I referenced above. If you’ve ever broken a stone that has been sitting out for a few years, you probably noticed that the weathered surface of the stone was a different color than the freshly exposed surface. It has been claimed that the grooves in the stones were similarly weathered/not weathered in a way that proved/disproved that they had been exposed for a long time. What I found, however, was that the “patina” covering the rock and turning it black was…shoe polish. Really. I found this out the hard way when I threw a carved stone that I had purchased into my suitcase and the black shoe polish rubbed off on a pair of jeans. I assumed that the stones at the museum did not have shoe polish on them, but when I went to the museum, the stones looked exactly like the one I had purchased. I asked the museum curator about it, and he said that the black material was indeed shoe polish. His explanation was that the people that had found the stones had covered them with shoe polish so that the carvings could be seen easier, but based on the fact that none of the polish ended up in the grooves, I am certain that the polish was applied to the stones before they were carved.

The second blow to the stones’ authenticity that I came across was the person who sold me a stone. The person claimed to have sold some to the museum, and was honest enough to sell the stones cheaply as artwork rather than charging three or four times more and claiming that they were from tombs. Based on the unmistakable similarity of the stone I purchased with those in the museum, I tend to believe the story about the sale to the museum.

The third problem I encountered was the other artifacts in the museum. The curator had gone to the place where the stones had been found/produced, and had come back with “dinosaur eggs” and “dinosaur bones” to back up the drawings of the dinosaurs on the stones. From my geological investigations, however, I know that the “dinosaur eggs” are really what we call concretions—in this case, they were egg-shaped lumps of sediment held together with gypsum or carbonates. The “dinosaur bones” are actually the bones of Miocene whales, which were buried in volcanic ash and marine sediments.

So, in conclusion, if we’re looking for evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, the Engraved Stone Museum is not the place to go. That said, archeologists have unearthed some artifacts in Peru that give one pause. I’ve seen very dinosaur-like creatures depicted on pottery that is held at the Museum of the Nation and the Larco Museum. This vase from the Larco Museum, for example, has a creature on it bearing a remarkable resemblance to a sauropod dinosaur.

I apologize for the picture quality—this item was on the bottom shelf of the museum archives in a poorly-lit room behind dirty glass.

The problem with using such a vase as evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, however, is that if we claim that the depiction on this vase is a realistic representation of something, we have to at least entertain the possibility that the monkey-headed monster on the next vase was also real.

I would be very intrigued if genuine stones were found that depicted humans and dinosaurs together, and based on the biblical narrative, I suspect that dinosaurs were present in the Garden of Eden. I also suspect that the countless dragon myths told by so many cultures around the world hearken back to ancient memories of these massive reptilians. As the saying goes, however, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and the engraved stones of Peru are not in the “extraordinary evidence” category.

An entertained mind is the devil’s workshop

The line, “If you go into a movie theater, your guardian angel will wait outside” is now frequently viewed as another artifact of Adventism’s embarrassingly legalistic past. A rhetorical question I’ve heard used as a counter-argument to this statement is “Does that mean that if I watch a movie on TV, the angels will leave my house?” Here are some statements from Messages to Young People regarding the theaters of the day:

Among the most dangerous resorts for pleasure is the theater. Instead of being a school for morality and virtue, as is so often claimed, it is the very hotbed of immorality. Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments. Low songs, lewd gestures, expressions, and attitudes, deprave the imagination and debase the morals. Every youth who habitually attends such exhibitions will be corrupted in principle. There is no influence in our land more powerful to poison the imagination, to destroy religious impressions, and to blunt the relish for tranquil pleasures and sober realities of life, than theatrical amusements.

The love for these scenes increases with every indulgence, as the desire for intoxicating drink strengthens with its use. The only safe course is to shun the theater, the circus, and every other questionable place of amusement.

The true Christian will not desire to enter any place of amusement or engage in any diversion upon which he cannot ask the blessing of God. He will not be found at the theater, the billiard hall, or the bowling saloon. He will not unite with the gay waltzers, or indulge in any other bewitching pleasure that will banish Christ from the mind.

To those who plead for these diversions, we answer, We cannot indulge in them in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The blessing of God would not be invoked upon the hour spent at the theater or in the dance. No Christian would wish to meet death in such a place. No one would wish to be found there when Christ shall come (398).

In response to the first statement, I’ve heard many Adventists repeat the mantra that “theaters are different today.” While this statement is obviously true on some levels (moving pictures and surround sound are new additions to the theater environment), look again at Ellen White’s description of the problem: “Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments. Low songs, lewd gestures, expressions, and attitudes, deprave the imagination and debase the morals.” This description of theatrical entertainment is still dead-on. Even when it appears that a movie portrays the triumph of good, what is really being portrayed is exactly the opposite. (See "The message from Hollywood.")

If we accept Ellen White’s first statement, then the second one follows. Why would we desire entertainment that serves to strengthen our vicious habits and sinful propensities?

In light of these statements from Ellen White, is the saying “If you go into a movie theater, your guardian angel will wait outside” outdated or too harsh?

It has become clear to me over the years from personal experience and from observing others that God often protects his wayward children. However, the temptations of Christ teach us that to trust in God’s protection while acting outside of His will is presumption. When Satan tempted Christ to jump from the temple, and quoted Psalm 91, saying “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone,” Jesus replied by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” If we intentionally place ourselves on Satan’s territory, we cannot claim God’s promises of protection.

If we bring the insidious influence of the television into our homes, we should expect it to drive out the influence of the Holy Spirit and the holy angels. If we wish to remain in the shadow of the Almighty, on the other hand, we should do all in our power to become more receptive to the Holy Spirit, and make our homes places where the Holy Spirit is free to work.

Jezebel, Balaam, the synagogue of Satan, and corporate responsibility

Christ’s messages to the seven churches in Asia are sobering audits, for the most part. Out of the seven, only Smyrna and Philadelphia are not rebuked harshly. It is helpful to contrast Smyrna and Philadelphia with Pergamum and Thyatira. All four churches have members that are working against the Gospel. Christ refers to those in Smyrna and Philadelphia as the “Synagogue of Satan.” In Pergamum and Thyatira, “Jezebel,” “them that hold the doctrine of Balaam,” and “them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes” are named.

In Christ’s audit, however, Smyrna and Philadelphia are assured that He knows the trouble that the Synagogue of Satan is causing for the true members of the Body of Christ, whereas Pergamum and Thyatira are rebuked for allowing those that hold false doctrines to entice others into sin.

False doctrine is not hard to spot. It is any teaching that contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, or any way of thinking that exalts human reasoning above the Bible. How would our churches fare if Christ were to send us a similar audit today? Would he commend us for keeping His commands and enduring patiently, or would he rebuke us for allowing members with false doctrines to lead others away from the truth and into sin?

Christ’s rebuke to Pergamum and Thyatira indicate clearly that He believes that we, as a church, are responsible for the doctrines that are taught from our pulpits, in our Sabbath School classes, and in our schools.

Let us heed Jude’s advice, and contend for the faith that was entrusted to God’s holy people. I can assure you that certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among us. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord, sometimes with great subtlety.

Dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They have written to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and who do not have the Spirit.

But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Be merciful to those who doubt; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Roger Morneau on the Origin of the Theory of Evolution

First, let me define my terms, and explain clearly what evolution teaches. When I say “evolution,” I do not mean change over time, or even adaptation to new environments. I am referring to the scientific teaching that life came from non-life through random chemical processes, and that all living forms, including humans, evolved by a blind, step-by-step process over vast eons of time. Blind, because the process is unguided. The famous biologist Jerry Coyne had this to say about the philosophical implications of evolution:

Evolution is unique amongst the sciences because it strikes people in the solar plexus of their faith directly. It strikes them at the idea that they are specially created by God, because evolution says you’re not; it says that there’s no special purpose for your life because it’s a naturalistic philosophy; we have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo. And it says that morality does not come from God; it is an evolved phenomenon. And those are three things that are really hard for humans to accept, particularly if they come from a religious tradition.

Here, then, is something to ponder: if God does exist and is the Creator, but evolution teaches that we were not created by God, that there is no special purpose to our lives, and that we are not morally responsible, who invented evolution?

One of the most interesting books I’ve read is Roger Morneau’s A Trip Into the Supernatural. After World War II, he was invited to join a secret society of Satan worshippers. After being part of the society for only a few months, God pulled him out, and he was lead to join the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church. While he was still part of the society, he had a conversation with the high priest of the Satanists that contained important information regarding the theory of evolution.

Here is the story according to the priest: prior to the 18th century, Satan, through his study of Bible prophecy, came to the conclusion that Daniel 12:4 was about to be fulfilled and that the Industrial Revolution was about to begin.

At the beginning of the 18th century, he called a general council of all of his spirit counselors, and they formulated a three-part plan to take complete control of the human mind throughout the period of change that was soon to come upon the world.

The first part of the plan was to convince the world that he and his demons did not exist. This part of the plan succeeded fairly well. As Michael Schermer put it, “By the 18th century, astronomy replaced astrology, chemistry succeeded alchemy, probability theory dislodged belief in luck and fortune…” This laid the foundation for naturalistic thinking—the idea that God has never, and still does not ever interfere with the world.

The second part of the plan was to gain control of people’s minds through hypnotism. He chose the brilliant German doctor Franz Mesmer to accomplish this task. By the end of Mesmer’s career, hypnosis was a respected tool of the medical profession. Now, television shows and popular songs can hypnotize millions of people at once.

The third part of the plan was to destroy the credibility of the Bible. This was to be accomplished through the introduction of the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley were chosen by Satan to systematize and popularize this doctrine, in part because they had both been hypnotized as children.

One paragraph of the book in particular bears repeating in its entirety:

To my shock and surprise, the priest then claimed that "the spirits consider anyone who teaches the theory of evolution to be a minister of that great religious system, and the individual will receive a special unction from Satan himself. Satan gives him great power to induce spiritual blindness, to convince, and to convert. In fact, he holds such people in such high regard that he assigns a special retinue of angels to accompany him or her all his or her life. It is the greatest honor that Satan can bestow upon a person in the presence of the galaxy."

So where did such an idea originate according to historical sources? While Charles Darwin gets credit for publishing the first fully-formed exposition of the modern theory of evolution, complete with the driving mechanism of natural selection, the seeds of the theory were planted much earlier. Georges-Louis Leclerc and others in the 18th century argued that organisms had changed over time, and that life had been on the earth for much longer than the Biblical chronology allowed.

One of the preeminent thinkers to propose a rudimentary theory of evolution was actually Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather. Here are excerpts from a chapter of his book The Temple of Nature, published in 1803:

Ere Time began, from flaming Chaos hurl'd Rose the bright spheres, which form the circling world; Earths from each sun with quick explosions burst, And second planets issued from the first. Then, whilst the sea at their coeval birth, Surge over surge, involv'd the shoreless earth; Nurs'd by warm sun-beams in primeval caves Organic Life began beneath the waves…

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves; First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass, Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass; These, as successive generations bloom, New powers acquire and larger limbs assume; Whence countless groups of vegetation spring, And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing…

Thus the tall Oak, the giant of the wood, Which bears Britannia's thunders on the flood; The Whale, unmeasured monster of the main, The lordly Lion, monarch of the plain, The Eagle soaring in the realms of air, Whose eye undazzled drinks the solar glare, Imperious man, who rules the bestial crowd, Of language, reason, and reflection proud, With brow erect who scorns this earthly sod, And styles himself the image of his God; Arose from rudiments of form and sense, An embryon point, or microscopic ens!

Piece by piece, the foundation was laid for the acceptance of evolutionary theory on biological grounds. On the geological front, in 1785, James Hutton published his influential work implying a great age to the geological record. In this article, he applied the principle of uniformitarianism (though it wasn’t called that until later) to the earth’s geological history. This was a necessary development for evolutionary theory, because it provided an interpretation of the geological record that suggested that a great deal of time had passed since earth’s formation and the origin of life.

Satan worked so carefully to lay each piece of the groundwork for the theory of evolution that a decade after the publication of On the Origin of Species, evolution had become widely accepted.

Satan’s goal has always been to unite the inhabitants of the earth in rebellion against God. The Satanist priest claimed that accepting the theory of evolution made a person a de facto member of Satan’s kingdom. I am convinced that Satan is overly optimistic about the extent of his kingdom, and that not all the people he claims as his really are (see Ellen White’s comments on the death of Moses, for example). God is merciful and we must never assume that He has given up on a person or does not have a plan for his or her life. Nevertheless, the worldview that accompanies evolution makes some unequivocal claims: God did not create the world in six days, and the creation was not perfect, so the Spirit of God, who inspired the Bible, is a liar. Thus, human reason must be above the clear word of Scripture.

Once human reason is elevated to the place of highest authority in the universe, the consequences described by Jerry Coyne become inescapable. Bereft of any absolute authority, any arbiter of reality, we are forced to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and live a life that has only the feeble, relative meaning we are able to imagine on our own. Our end becomes one of vast nothingness.

The theory of evolution also strips the SDA church of its mission and message, minimizing the consequences of humanity's fall into sin, removing the rationale for remembering the Sabbath day as a memorial of creation, making Jesus’ ministry on this earth of no effect by the outlawing of miracles (such as the resurrection), and ultimately casting doubt on God’s ability to recreate a new, perfect earth.

Many might think that I’m being too hard on evolutionary theory. After all, doesn’t science support it? I have three responses. First, the Word of God is my foundation. The very short section of the Bible that God wrote with His own finger includes this comment: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy… For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20: 8, 11). Exodus also records the belligerent rebellion of a man who collected sticks on the Sabbath immediately thereafter and was stoned. This should make it exceedingly clear to us that God was referring to literal days.

Second, the theory of evolution retains its status as “mainstream science” only because the media gatekeepers vigilantly attempt to keep any evidence or reasoning that might dethrone evolution out of the sight of the public. Questioning evolution in scientific journals or the mainstream media is absolutely forbidden.

Third, the theory of evolution is not supported by geological or biological evidence. Evolution does not spring from careful scientific investigation. It is, rather, the outcome of assuming naturalism, and coming up with the best possible theory of origins in the absence of a Creator.

What about theistic evolution? In its most basic form, theistic evolution rests on a foundation of methodological naturalism, and does not contradict Darwinian evolution. Methodological naturalism states that God does not interact with the world, and thus, miracles do not happen. The most important miracles in question are the creation of the world by God, the virgin birth, and Christ’s resurrection. The list of forbidden miracles should also include Christ’s second coming, the resurrection of the dead, and the creation of the earth a second time. Very simply, no miracles = no Christianity.

Theistic evolution is an attempt to gain the friendship of the world while avoiding atheism. First, this is scientifically unnecessary. Second, James had some strong words regarding those who advocate friendship with the world: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God“ (James 4:4).

Let us not capitulate to the demands or the deceptions of the devil in any way. We, as a church, will pay for any wavering on this issue in the souls of our children. If we stand firmly for truth, God Himself will fight for us.

A musician’s perspective on contemporary christian music

It is not my purpose in this article to cast moral judgment on contemporary Christian music. What I hope to show, rather, is a musician’s perspective on how a trend toward contemporary Christian music affects a church and its worship service. The last two times I’ve been to Loma Linda University Church, the worship service has been led by younger people, and all of the songs that they chose would fit into the contemporary Christian genus. Up until very recently, LLUC sung primarily hymns during church. (They might go back to hymns next week—two Sabbaths is not a statistically significant sample.) I believe that the atmosphere of the worship service and the reaction of the church to the songs and the song leaders are instructive, particularly because the congregation was not used to such worship services. (Only the style was unfamiliar. The songs chosen were known by all, young and old, and the words were on the screen.) Just to clarify, the music was not loud, nor was it accompanied by drums.

The most obvious change from previous Sabbaths was that the congregation barely sang. There were people quietly mumbling along, but very few people engaged in any of the songs, and many of the people politely did nothing. There are various reasons for this, having to do with both the song leaders and the music.

First, the musicians almost always treat this type of song service as a performance. The people that wrote many of these songs wrote them for the purpose of performing them at their Christian Rock concerts, and the song leaders have carried on the tradition of performing on stage. The problem with this is that performance is diametrically opposed to congregational worship. When one has the attitude of a performer, he or she seeks to become the center of the audience’s attention, rather than leading the congregation to focus its attention on God. The difference can be quite subtle. It is possible to be a humble and soft-spoken performer, and still fail to focus the audience’s attention on God.

The music itself has characteristics that inhibit people from engaging in worship as well. The first has to do with the intellectual level of the music. When I teach a child to play the piano, the first thing they learn is to play a single melody line. A short while later, they learn to add simple chords to the melody line. In a few more days or weeks (if they practice), they are playing songs that contain simultaneous melodic lines in both hands (think of simple works by J. S. Bach). Eventually, the students move on to three- and four-part works of ever increasing complexity (think of “O Sacred Head” or “Break Forth O Beauteous Heavenly Light”). These songs actually have four simultaneous lines of music. Each line has a melodic beauty of its own, and together they form a work of sublime harmonic beauty and interest. When a person has grown up singing hymns, they have been educated in an art form that calls forth the higher levels of intellectual appreciation and aesthetic response. The bulk of contemporary Christian music is stuck at the second stage of music education that I listed above—simple melodies accompanied by simple chords. I think that one of the main reasons hymn-singing congregations feel uncomfortable with contemporary Christian music is that it pulls them back to their second month of childhood music lessons. As an analogy, think how a congregation would feel if a visiting pastor got up to preach a sermon, and started acting out the cradle roll lesson with a perfectly straight face.

A related problem is that the song leaders often pick keys that are too high or too low for some of the people in the congregation. This can be a problem with hymns, too, but when a church sings hymns out of the hymnal, there is a ready solution: sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses each have their own part written out for them. One might think I’m asking too much of congregations here, but I know from much experience that there are very few people in the world who cannot learn to sing well, and most people who do not think they have much musical talent can actually learn to sing in parts with a few years of practice. (It really can take a few years.)

This brings me to an educational consideration. At the academy I attended, we sang hymns and choral songs for several hours a week. Choir was mandatory, and we performed regularly. After a year or two (or occasionally three or four) at the school, most of the students had the capacity to sing well as part of a group and had learned to enjoy singing. Every time we sang, the church rang with rich four-part harmony. When it came to learning new songs, there were enough good readers in the church to carry most any hymn on the first or second run through. All of this was accomplished mostly by mere exposure to the music, rather than dedicated attempts by the faculty to educate us in music.

On the contrary, I’ve noticed that the trappings of contemporary Christian music generally correlate with an overall decline in the musical ability of congregations. The first problematic characteristic of the contemporary style of worship is the movement away from hymnals and written music, which is related to the educational problems mentioned above. This virtually guarantees complete musical illiteracy in all the members of the congregation that do not actively seek out a musical education elsewhere. The second such characteristic is the move away from traditional instruments like the piano and the organ, which are more conducive to a higher level of musical education than guitars or drums, and are much better for leading congregations in four-part harmony. These factors combine to make learning new music cumbersome and limit the complexity of the new songs that are introduced.

Finally, I have noticed that there is an inverse relationship between the volume coming from the stage and the volume of the audience’s singing. The obvious reason is that most full-fledged contemporary Christian praise services are so loud that they do not allow anyone to really hear his or her own voice. In this setting, people feel that they are not contributing to the worship service by singing. The result is that very few people even try to compete with the sound system. On many occasions, I’ve witnessed the congregation spontaneously start singing when the band cut out for a few bars, only to stop and settle back into audience mode when the band came back in.

Supporters of contemporary worship often object that young people will not come to church or get involved with the worship service if we do not play contemporary Christian music. Music appreciation, however, is primarily an issue of education. I have, at various times in my life, appreciated nearly every musical style invented since the dawn of Western musical notation back in the Dark Ages, including modern classical music that very few people can tolerate for more than a few seconds. (In fact, I wrote a thesis on such music.) As I mentioned above, contemporary Christian music is more accessible to those with a very limited musical education, but the fact that it does not seek to improve the musical education of the congregation is a fatal flaw. Singing beautifully as a congregation requires some education and effort. We should, as congregations, strive to make beautiful singing a reality, and in so doing, we will bring up our children to appreciate music of the highest quality.

The Message from Hollywood

I’ve watched a fair number of movies in my life. Many were devoid of even the most basic artistic value, many were only marginally entertaining, and I could feel my brain turning to a cottage-cheese like mush while watching most of them. In general, I treated them like a necessary distraction from the great piles of homework that never seemed to go away. A while back, however, I got so busy that I didn’t have any time for movies at all, and I gradually stopped watching them altogether. Recently, I made my abstinence more intentional, for reasons I hope will become clear as you read. To backtrack a bit, the first movie I ever watched (and one of the few movies I watched before I got to college) was “The Last Starfighter,” a sci-fi about a boy who masters a video game and is subsequently recruited to join in a great space battle. (It turned out that the video game was a training tool to find gifted fighters.) I was six or seven years old at the time, and afterword, I asked my dad what the movie meant. The part of his explanation that I remember was “They are telling the story of the Great Controversy from Satan’s perspective.”

Over the last few years, I’ve come to the conclusion that this insight explains the plots of many movies, particularly epic movies about a grand conflict between good and evil. “Transformers” is an excellent example: Optimus Prime and his followers are cast down to earth for rebellion after loosing a great battle, and they become heroes and save the earth from the tyrannical Decepticons who want to enslave humanity. They are the “Autobots”—those who govern themselves. The “Avengers” movies that have recently come out contain another good example: Thor is cast down to earth from Asgard (the dwelling place of the Gods) for insubordination, but becomes a great hero on earth when he helps defeat his evil adopted brother who is intent on enslaving humanity.

Satan sees himself as the good guy, and it doesn’t take much spiritual discernment to understand that Hollywood is under his control. When Optimus Prime and Thor are seen as the Lucifer character in the Great Controversy, the other pieces of each allegory fall into place. The most telling aspect of each becomes the depiction of the Christ character. Satan’s hatred is mostly directed at Christ, so the villain in these movies typically depicts Christ. In “Transformers,” Megatron is the most likely candidate—he is killed and resurrected, and ends up walking around in a ragged cape looking like a large metal prophet. In the “Avengers,” Christ is depicted as the evil adopted brother, a would-be usurper of Thor’s right to the throne, and a power-hungry dictator intent on exacting worship from all humanity. Both series climax with the coming of the evil ones to earth (a “second coming” in the case of the Transformers).

“The Matrix” is a much more sophisticated allegory. The most obvious players are the Architect and the Oracle, the creators of the Matrix; Agent Smith, the law-enforcer; and Neo, the savior character. One might be tempted to think of Neo as a Christ character—after all, he is referred to as “Jesus Christ” at the beginning of the movie. At the end, his dead body is tenderly carried off by little machines with his arms outstretched as if he were on a cross. Take a look at his most important qualification, though: he is the ultimate rebel. According to the movie, Neo didn’t rebel because he was bad—his rebellion was inevitable. It was something inherent in him, something that responded to a deep flaw in the reality created by the Architect and the Oracle. In fact, he was the sum of the freewill (referred to as the “anomaly”) of the mass of humanity, a humanity hopelessly resisting an arbitrary law they did not understand.

After a new birth, complete with amniotic fluid (“neo” means “new” or “young,” after all), Neo starts fighting the Matrix in earnest over a checkered floor—a representation of the knowledge of good and evil. He learns to be free by learning to break the laws of the Matrix, and finally assumes a sort of godhood when he basically dies and is resurrected. At this point, he understands the laws of the Matrix perfectly and as such, can bend them as he wills, giving him perfect freedom. Neo is the sixth incarnation of the rebel, and the architect refers to him as “the first and the last.”

When Neo kills Agent Smith (who is also subsequently resurrected), he unintentionally gives him the power to impart his nature to humans and gives Smith power over the law as well (The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord—from Satan’s perspective, Christ breaks the law by granting sinners eternal life). Smith’s character actually portrays Christ in the movie, but Satan hates to admit that Jesus Christ is God, so Smith starts out as a mere program like all other programs. Only after Neo kills him does he become an immensely powerful force in the Matrix. Toward the end, Smith achieves a sort of omnipotence (though the only advantage he has over Neo is his ability to impart his image to others, which he does by force). With his usurpation of the Oracle’s powers, he achieves a sort of omniscience. A “smith” is one who makes things—I suspect that ”Agent Smith” is a reference to the “Word,” the Agent by whom “all things were made.”

The key, then, to understanding movies is knowing that they “call evil good and good evil,” and “turn darkness into light and light into darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). In these movies and in many others, Lucifer is the protagonist and Christ is the antagonist. Through this type of movie, Satan’s message to the world is that Christ is not divine and that He operates through coercion and hunger for power, while Satan—always the good guy—wants only what’s best for the human race. Movies depict God as a tyrant, and teach that by breaking His arbitrary law, we can obtain true freedom.

Male and female, in the image of Christ

The Apostle John makes it clear that Jesus Christ is not only the world’s Redeemer, but also its Creator. Jesus formed Adam and Eve with his own hands, creating them in His image. This image of God, imparted to humanity, is often thought of in terms of God’s creative power being imparted to us in a few specific ways. Our abilities to reason, reproduce, and be stewards of the earth are often among the most commonly mentioned. The crowning act of God’s creativity, however, was in God’s redemption of this world, and I would argue that it is in the marriage relationship that we humans most fully partake of the redemptive aspect of God’s image.

The Bible often refers to the Church as the “Bride of Christ,” and Paul used this analogy in Ephesians 5 to explain to husbands and wives how they ought to treat each other:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

We well know that what Christ did for the Church was the most painful and difficult thing anyone has ever done, and we are familiar with the above passage, but we frequently fail to connect these two pieces of knowledge. If we place our dealings with our spouses in the context of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of the Church, the solemnity of our duties, the nature of our struggles, and the eternal and glorious nature of our rewards become clear.

In practical terms, husbands are called to unconditionally love their wives, and wives are called to unconditionally respect their husbands (Love and Respect, Emerson Eggerich). Wives, for the record, our calling as husbands is just as difficult as yours. Both callings require humility that only Christ can impart. When a husband is called to love his disrespectful wife, or a wife is called to respect an unloving husband, Satan will be right there with the same temptations he threw at Christ in Gethsemane: “Your suffering is pointless, your humility will be taken advantage of, nobody will accept your sacrifice, you will be rejected, and there will be no reward.”

Often, our mistreatment of each other has a specific goal—we are trying to get the other person to realize that they have wronged us, to apologize, and ultimately to treat us as we wish to be treated. In acting this way, however, we attempt to do the work of the Holy Spirit. Only God can convict people of sin. By usurping the Holy Spirit’s role, we actually hamper the work of sanctification that God is doing in our spouse’s life.

If, on the other hand, we make Christ’s humility and forgiveness our modus operandi, treating our spouses according to the Divine mandate and patiently waiting for the Holy Spirit to work in our spouses’ life, we become fuller partakers of not only Christ’s nature, but also Christ’s reward.

Eternal power vs. blind chance, part II

A careful look at the probability of Darwinian evolution unequivocally denies the possibility of progress. If God’s works are made manifest in this way, though, how is it that many evolutionists, even those that are good at math, don’t see this as a fatal flaw in their theory? First, they see the action of natural selection as a mechanism that provides them with a loophole. If natural selection is strong enough, according to the theory, it will drive things forward and progress will be inevitable.

There’s a catch, though: the probability calculations show that Darwinian mechanisms cannot produce the proper mutations. Natural selection is simply the process by which those new mutations are fixed in the gene pool. If the necessary new mutations never arise, natural selection has nothing to work with and therefore cannot be the mechanism by which progress is made. (Michael Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution is a must-read for anyone interested in this topic. All of the data ever collected on mutations confirm that the Darwinian processes of mutation and natural selection are subject to the laws of probability.)

Another common objection to the probability hurdle can be demonstrated by the following conundrum: if I multiply out all the statistical probabilities that resulted in the uplift, erosion and current form of Mt. Everest, the existence of the mountain would appear to be a statistical impossibility. This must prove that either statistically impossible phenomena happen regularly, or that statistics can be applied only to events that have not yet happened, right?

This counterargument belies a misunderstanding of the specificity of the arrangement of DNA nucleotides in the cell. The DNA in the cell is more like the form of Mt. Rushmore than Mt. Everest: It means something. If something is complex but not specified, such as the arrangement of blades of grass in my lawn or the placement of the cracks in the rocks that make up the peak of Mt Everest, there is no information present. In other words, when we apply the word “specified” to DNA sequences, we are saying that not just any arrangement of nucleotides will suffice for a given task. It must be a specific arrangement.

One idea kicked around in evolutionary biology is that there are many possible DNA sequences that could potentially get a job done, thereby limiting the specificity required for life to function. This approach doesn’t help, however. Even if there were billions of functional variations of the simplest genome known to science, its development by Darwinian mechanisms would be statistically impossible. A useful analogy is scrabble letters. There may be many ways to use all the letters in the bag to make a meaningful paragraph, but we would be extremely surprised if we dumped the letters out of the bag, and they formed one of those meaningful sequences.

Once the issue of specificity is clarified, Darwinists tend to argue that necessity must play some role in the development of life (1). Necessity, in this context, refers to chemical bonding preferences (2). If you have sodium ions and chloride ions in water, and you boil away all the water, the ions will, by necessity, form table salt. The argument, then, is that the laws that govern chemistry caused living organisms to come together and evolve.

The most basic fallacy in this argument is that chemical bonding preferences create repeating sequences of atoms and therefore cannot create information. Imagine trying to type a message on a computer that only allowed letters to fall in alphabetical order. Written communication would be impossible under such constraints.

Finally, after natural selection has been assigned to its proper place, the role of specificity has been properly understood, and necessity has been deemed unhelpful in information production, the last argument in favor of Darwinism is that science must, under all circumstances and against all odds, adhere to methodological naturalism.

Creationists have often been accused of allowing philosophy to warp their scientific views. When the data are allowed to speak, however, the true dogmatism is revealed. Darwinian evolution—though founded on the negation of God’s action—demands miracle after miracle of incalculable magnitude to succeed.

1. In general, Darwinists deny the action of necessity in evolutionary theory (Michael Shermer, “The Role of Contingency and Necessity in Evolution” in Nature of Nature). I’ve only heard it used in debates as a position of retreat when the idea of the power of natural selection has succumbed and specificity has been correctly understood. 2. Some might argue that I’ve set up a straw man by limiting the argument to chemistry, and that there might be other mechanisms at work on a different level. My reply is that no one has even remotely demonstrated such a mechanism, and conjecture is a poor replacement for data.