Special Pleading by Christians

Over the years, there have been many attempts by secular sources to ascribe natural explanations to certain miracles in the Bible. A few notable examples surround the 10 Plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7-11) and the Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14). In 1957, Greta Hort, a Dutch physicist published a “chain reaction” theory explaining how a massive amount of red algae and red clay in the Nile turned it “to blood,” which drove out the frogs, killed livestock, bred mosquitoes, and caused all the other plagues described in Exodus. A similar phenomenon occurs occasionally when describing New Testament events. For example, a few people attempt to explain the darkness at Jesus' crucifixion as an eclipse (an impossibility since the Passover occurs at the time of a full moon).

A few, well-meaning Christians have adopted Hort's explanation (and other, similar explanations) as “scientific evidence” supporting the Biblical account. However, the vast majority of these explanations are rejected by mainstream Christians. The 10 Plagues of Egypt were not natural events that merely coincided with God's judgment. They were supernatural events, intended not only to bring God's wrath on the Egyptians but also to demonstrate God's Lordship over nature and His superiority over the false gods of the Egyptians. The Egyptians worshiped the Nile; God turned the Nile to blood. The Egyptians worshiped the sun; God turned the sun black for three days.

This desire to appeal to natural explanations for miraculous events is curious. When a passage obviously refers to a miraculous event, why would any Christian seek a natural explanation instead? It's precisely because such an event defies a natural explanation that we know it's the work of God. If God only performed His miracles in the guise of a natural event, then God would be completely indistinguishable from dumb luck. He would seem to me to be a god of coincidences – a charlatan who exploits rare but mundane events as examples of his “power.”

Like I've said, the vast majority of these natural explanations are rejected by mainstream Christians. However, one natural explanation still endures and is accepted by a sizable percentage of Christians. It is the natural explanation of our origins. Why is it that many of the same Christians who reject ideas like Hort's, will embrace the Big Bang and evolutionary views of people like Hawking and Dawkins? It's a sort of special pleading. They will believe that Jesus literally turned water to wine but they refuse to believe God literally spoke and the universe appeared. It almost seems that they have too low an opinion of God where He is able to do “little” miracles in an instant but creating the universe must have taken billions of years!

What makes it especially odd is that Hort's views seem more plausible than the far fetched ideas like the Big Bang which proposes everything came from nothing. If I were to believe any natural explanation for a miracle, I'm sure I would be far more apt to believe the credible explanations. God creating life is far more credible and scientific than life simple appearing from a random mix of nonliving chemicals. What's odder still is how these Christians will reject the explanations that fit well with a plain reading of the text (like red algae and clay turning the Nile blood-red) but then resort to a tortured reading of the text to make it fit the natural explanation (like “day one” in Genesis 1 really means “billions of years”).

Why should I believe that some passages of the Bible describe miracles while other passages are merely fantastic descriptions of natural events? Why should I believe that the Hebrew children, who could understand that the parting of the Red Sea was a supernatural act of God, couldn't have also understood “millions of years” if God explained it to them? Why should I believe the supernatural explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead after 3 days and not the supernatural explanation that God created the world in 6 days? It all seems rather arbitrary to me. When critics pull tricks like this, I accuse them of special pleading. When Christians do it, I also call it special pleading.

Explaining the Observation or Observing the Explanation?

In scientific circles, the word, “theory” has a technical meaning (unless you're talking about the origin of life, in which case “theory” means “wild guess”). According to Wiki, a scientific theory is, “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.” I'm not going to quibble over the definition. Instead, I want to highlight to word, “explanation.” Technically, a theory starts with a hypothesis but, again, I'm more interested in the explanatory aspect of theories so I'm going to use the word theory a little more casually. In less formal words, a theory is an attempt to explain what something is or why it is that way. Sometimes, evolutionists chide creationists over the latter's use of the word, “theory.” However, the common understanding that theories are attempts to explain data, is the bottom line in the understanding of both sides.

What is a fossil? How old is it? Why are rocks laid down in layers? What are stars? How far away are they? Why do bird wings resemble reptile claws? These are the types of questions some people ask and our theories are our attempts to answer them. When we come up with our explanation, we want to consider every relevant piece of data. Your theory should explain how all the available “evidence” fits together.  A good theory should explain all the data well. 

Evolutionists, of course, think their theory is the best explanation of all the available evidence. That's why they think their theory is the correct explanation. A problem arises, though, when they start saying that there is evidence “for” their theory. That implies that the evidence is somehow exclusive to their theory. It's as though they want to claim a monopoly on fossils, or rock layers, or the oceans, or the stars, etc.... Once this happens, the theory of evolution becomes barely more than a circular argument.

I've used this example before but I think it illustrates this phenomenon well. Suppose you and I were walking along on a beach and we find an unusual looking rock. It's black with uniform, purple lines on it. I propose a theory: “I think aliens painted these lines on this rock.” You answer, “What evidence do you have for that?” I answer, “Well, there's the rock and there are the lines. That's certainly evidence for my theory!”

Can you see how circular that is? Evolutionists do exactly the same thing. How many times have you heard some evolutionist ask (or, if you're an evolutionist, how many times have you asked), “What is the evidence for creation?” Actually, they usually ask, “What is the evidence for creationism?” Anyway, such a question reeks of circularity. The evidence for creation is the exact same evidence as the evidence for evolution. We merely have different theories to explain the evidence.

FACT: The bones in human arms/hands resemble the bones in chimp arms/hands.

THEORY 1: The bones are similar because chimps and humans share a common ancestor and the modern limbs are modified adaptations of the primitive limbs in the ancestor.

THEORY 2: The bones are similar because they were both designed by a common Creator Who purposely made them that way because they perform similar functions.

In this example, what is the evidence for creation? It's that there is similar design in unrelated creatures. However, evolutionists will not consider it evidence “for” creation but will insist the similarity is evidence “for” common descent. In other words, it can't be evidence for creation because it's already evidence for evolution. They do this every time. It's why they say there's no evidence “for” creation.  They assume their explanation is true so the evidence can only support their explanation.

Circular arguments are notoriously self-fulfilling. Evolutionists have become so convinced that their theory is the correct explanation that they have become blind to any other possible explanation for the same evidence. To them, everything in heaven and earth is now evidence for evolution. It's as though the evidence is literally speaking to them, telling them “evolution is true.” When they see the rocks and trees, birds and bees, they see “evolution.” Their explanation of their observations has flip-flopped into becoming their observation of the explanation.

Acts 20:28: The Blood of God or the Blood of His Son? An Argument of Exceptions

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

I was online the other day, discussing this verse. It's one of special, theological importance. A plain reading of this verse shows that God purchased the church, “with His own blood.” Obviously, it was Jesus who shed His blood on the cross so this verse seems to affirm the divinity of Jesus. That is, Jesus is God.

The person with whom I was discussing this verse took exception to that understanding. He resorted to a “mistranslation” argument. I've had dealings with this individual before and his Greek is not really that good. However, in this case, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the Greek that he was leveraging to bolster his point.

The Greek reads, διὰ (through) τοῦ (the) αἵματος (blood) τοῦ (the) ἰδίου (His own).

The most obvious translation of this verse is the one rendered in most Bibles, “through His own blood.” Another translation, which is a little more awkward in English, is “through the blood which is His own.” But there is still another possibility: “through the blood of His own (Son).”

The latter translation is not the most likely but it is still possible. The question is, which is the intended translation of the three? Since the critic I was conversing with online did not believe Jesus is God, he argued the 3^rd translation, the least likely one, is the correct one. He hooted and cheered that even RKBentley, a conservative Christian, acknowledged that “through the blood of His own” had merit as a possible translation. Of course, he ignored that I said it is the less likely one. As far as he was concerned, it is THE translation because Jesus is not God.

From there, we began discussing some other verses that referred to Jesus as God. Here are a few that I cited – please excuse my frequent use of the word, “clearly,” I was making a point:

In John 20:28, Thomas clearly says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me.”

John 1:1c clearly says, “the Word was God.”

Titus 2:13 clearly says, “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 1:1 clearly says, “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”

In John 10:11, Jesus clearly said, “I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the good shepherd” while Psalm 23:1 clearly says, “Jehovah is my shepherd.”

In Matthew 3:3, John the Baptist said he was preparing the way for the Lord (who is clearly Jesus) just like Isaiah said. Isaiah 40:3 clearly said the prophet will prepare the way for Jehovah.

Joel 2:32 clearly says that whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved. Roman 10:13 clearly says whoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.

Revelation 1:8, we clearly see that God is the Alpha and Omega. In Revelation 1:17, Jesus clearly says He is the first and the last. In Revelation 22:13, we clearly see that the Alpha/Omega and the first/last is the same Person.

In John 5:21, Jesus clearly says He gives life just as the Father gives life.

In John 5:23 Jesus clearly says we should honor Him in the same way we honor the Father

In John 10:30, Jesus clearly said, “I and the Father are one.”

We also have many clear instances of people worshiping Jesus; The man born blind (John 9:38), the magi (Matthew 2:11), the disciples in the boat (Matthew 14:33), et al.

So we see time after time where the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as God. The response from my critic friend online was to cite William Barclay:

But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of a translation. In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which two possible translations is to be accepted.

Note that Barclay said, “almost every occasion.” If the Bible says even once that Jesus is God, then that would clear up the ambiguous verses but never mind that now. What struck me was that the rebuttal I usually hear to seemingly clear references of Jesus' divinity is to say that the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to be saying.  Each and every time the Bible seems to identify Jesus as God, they say a more obscure translation of the verse is the correct one.

Is that the best they have? Their only response - ever - is to say, “what that really means is....”  We argue rules and they argue exceptions. How odd it would be if God gave us His revelation in code. How are we expected to understand any part of the Bible if the most ordinary meaning of any verse is never the correct one?

The Appendix: Evidence Against Evolution

Ordinarily, I would never consider a sit com to be representative of any group but I'm going to use a scene from The Big Bang Theory as the backdrop for a discussion about the appendix. I'm doing this for a couple of reasons. First, I don't think anyone would argue that a vast majority of evolutionists consider the appendix to be vestigial so it's not like the show misrepresents this attitude. Second, it's just a funny scene and I'm going to exploit it for the sake of making my blog more interesting.

Enjoy!

Isn't that hilarious? Anyway, back to business. As I've already said, the appendix is touted by evolutionists as the champion of vestigial organs. The theory of evolution virtually demands that there be vestigial organs and so, when the label of “vestigial” can be attach to some structure, they are quick to trumpet it as evidence for their theory. I cannot recall ever having a discussion of vestigial organs without the appendix being used by evolutionists as an example.

By way of definition, a structure is considered vestigial if it has lost all or most of its original function. Even if the structure has function, it can still be considered vestigial if it doesn't perform its original function. The wings of a bat, for example, could be considered vestigial forelimbs because they are no longer used for walking but are now used for flying. Every definition I've heard of vestigial suffers from a range of weaknesses which I've talked about on my blog before. I'm not going to quibble over the definition of vestigial now. Instead, I'm going to question the idea that the appendix is evidence for evolution at all.

According to evolution, the appendix evolved in some ancestor of humans and once served an important function (or at least it evolved to serve some function). Since we are descended from this supposed ancestor, we have inherited that structure but, over the many generations of mutation and selection leading from the non-human ancestor to us, the appendix has lost its original function. For this reason, it's sometimes called an “evolutionary leftover.”

Humans are not the only creatures with an appendix. Dozens of mammals have appendixes – but not every mammal. Here's where the theory starts to get thorny. According to the theory of common descent, we should be able to trace the appendix along the so called “nested-hierarchy” where all the animals which have an appendix also share a common ancestor. The problem is, there is no predictable pattern among the mammals with appendixes. The appendix appears in some species of primates, rodents, and even marsupials but is absent from the intermediate groups linking these species. It's not at all what we would expect if evolution were true.

Failed predictions are usually considered evidence against a scientific theory. However, the fact that the presence of the appendix follows no predictable pattern hardly raises an eyebrow among evolutionists. As is often the case, they invent ad hoc theories to explain the failed prediction. Here is a quote from Science Now:

In a new study, published online this month in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. [Bold added]

Give me a break. The structure “must have” evolved 30+ times? There's another possibility, you know. Namely that the seeming random appearance of an appendix is evidence that the creatures on the “tree of life” are not related in an evolutionary sense. I wonder if the scientists even considered that possibility.

When creatures that aren't closely related share similar features, it's attributed to “convergent evolution.” As the story goes, there is sometimes a “best” solution to make a creature better adapted to its environment and “nature” will happen on that same solution time and time again. In the case of mammal digestion, the appendix must have fit some important need so well that “nature” created one on at least 30 occasions! But that “just so” story, that the appendix evolved so often because it was the “best solution,” stretches credulity if the appendix is now considered vestigial in most of the creatures that have one!

So let's wrap this up: The appendix appears in no discernible pattern on the so called, “tree of life” which calls into question the entire concept of common descent.  We have to believe the appendix is so important that it evolved independently 30+ times but it's also so unimportant that most creatures that have one don't need it.

Hmmm.  Please explain to me again: how is the appendix evidence for evolution?