Conversation with a Statistician

James A. Choury of Haven Ministries

April of 2009

I recently read Richard Dawkins’ book “River Out of Eden”, (BasicBooks, a Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1995). On pages 79 through 83 Dawkins uses a computer simulation experiment of the evolution of an eye (a vertebrate eye) published by two Swedish scientists to demonstrate how easy it was for evolution to produce over 40 different types of eyes within the 600 million years normally given for such a task. I had some real questions.

My undergraduate degree is in Mathematics and Physics and I did study Statistics as well. Dawkins states that it took the computer “only” 400,000 generations to produce the eye by random mutations, each of which brought about a small improvement. It seemed to me Dawkins was talking about independent, joint occurrences (like flipping a single coin four hundred thousand times and always getting heads). It seemed so preposterous that anyone would propose such a thing (400,000 continuous successful mutations in a row) or that anyone would accept such an idea that I thought I would consult an expert.

I made an appointment to talk to someone in the Statistics department at Colorado State University here in Fort Collins. We had a half hour conversation in which I got directly to the point. My question was: “Am I interpreting Dawkins correctly?” “Is he talking about independent joint occurrences and am I using the proper formulas to calculate the probability?” The Ph.D. in probability looked it over, got out his scratch pad, did some figuring and to my happy surprise said “yes”. Dawkins is talking about 400,000 tosses of the natural selection “coin” and coming up with 400,000 heads in a row*. Amazing! I mentioned to the statistician that the Swedish scientists who set up the computer simulation 1) began the simulation with an already existing photosensitive cell, 2) only allowed for favorable outcomes (albeit, small improvements) and 3) didn’t take into consideration that vision requires much more than just a functioning eye. Vision also depends on a very complicated (more complicated than the actual eye), well developed and properly functioning cerebral cortex (part of the brain). This very amiable and, I believe, competent man agreed with what I was saying and my time was up.

The back cover of Dawkins’ book has a quote from the A.L.A. Booklist that says the following about the “Science Masters” series of which Dawkins’ book is a member: “Aimed at busy, nonmathematical readers, this precise series evinces solid quality control and begins under highly favorable auspices.” I believe many “nonmathematical” readers have been and will be persuaded by Dawkin’s books. The math needed to see through Dawkins is not “rocket science” but few people take the time to understand probability. Of course, they are too busy and they are “nonmathematical”.

Many Christians are also quite nonmathematical and busy doing many things. Being prepared to give an answer for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15) may demand more from us than we have grown accustomed to do and to be.

*The probability of tossing a coin and getting a heads is ½ or 50%. The odds in Dawkins’ example were actually much smaller, around 1/200 or about 0.5%.

Haven Ministries, Box 460366, Aurora, CO jamesachoury@yahoo.com

Evolution and Academic Freedom

from the February 12, 2008 eNews issue
http://www.khouse.org (visit our website for a FREE subscription)

---

Nearly 150 years after Darwin published Origin Of The Species, his theory of evolution continues to cause controversy. This next week the Florida Board of Education will vote on the state's new science standards, including what will be required in the area of evolution education. In the meanwhile, a professor at Iowa State University recently lost an appeal after arguing his tenure was denied because he supports Intelligent Design.

While many people believe that the evolution controversy is about religion, many closely involved believe it is more about the academic freedom of a scientific minority - a minority that argues that evolution is insufficient to explain the well-engineered complexity of life on earth.

Florida

Florida's time for the science standards battle has arrived. On February 19, the state board will finalize its decision on how to handle the prickly subject of evolution in the state's science standards. If left as they are, the standards would promote microbes-to-man evolution as basic scientific fact.

The board held a final hearing Monday to allow differing views to be expressed. Concerned citizens traveled from the far nooks and crannies of Florida to voice their opinions and nearly 80 people spoke over five hours. Significant numbers expressed concern that evolution should not be promoted as a fact but as a theory, while others argued that a soft approach on evolution would set the state back and would fail to prepare the students for college.

The chairmen of various district school boards joined the fray.

Chairmen like Debra Walker of the Monroe County School Board argued that the science standards should remain the same. Walker asserted that there would be little controversy over evolution if people were better educated in science.

On the other hand, Patricia Weeks, chairman of the Baker County School Board argued that, "The standards deny academic freedom to students and teachers." Her local school board had voted to request revised standards in which "evolution is not presented as fact."

While the state board has given all sides freedom to speak, only the votes next Tuesday will show whether the open forum had any effect on the science standards.

Iowa

In the meanwhile, Guillermo Gonzalez believes that he was wrongly denied tenure at Iowa State University because he supports Intelligent Design.

Gonzalez, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State, appealed the decision to deny him tenure last spring. He argued that the decision was based not on his research and his teaching, but on a smear campaign against him because he supports Intelligent Design.

The Iowa Board of Regents voted 7-1 to deny his appeal on February 7. Gonzalez, however, had not been allowed to give oral arguments to the board. He believes that if he had been able to do so, he might have proved his case. Emails between professors and administrators at Iowa State justified his position.

"I don't see how they come to reach an informed decision without all of the relevant facts," Gonzalez said. He believes the vote was a "major blow to academic freedom."

Related Links:

• Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez And Academic Persecution - The Discovery Institute
• Professor Who Backs Intelligent Design Loses Tenure Appeal - AP
• Evolution Backers, Opponents Make Points At Orlando Hearing - Orlando Sentinel
• Bay District School Board to Discuss Evolution - WJHG.com

Chance and Intelligent Design 3

By James A. Choury, serving with WorldVenture in North Brazil

[leia este artigo em Português]

To answer the query concerning the probability of the universe and life coming into being by chance we need to understand how probability is defined and calculated.

Probability: The number of possible ways of attaining a result divided by the total number of possible outcomes. Probability is always a fraction between 0 and 1.

Examples: The chances of getting a head on any toss of a coin is ½ because there is only one way of getting a head and there are two possible outcomes of tossing a single coin; heads or tails. Therefore the probability is ½ or .50 or 50%.
The chances of rolling a die and getting a one is 1/6 because there is only one way to get a one on top and there are six different ways a die can land. So the probability is 1/6 or .16666666…. or 16.66 %.
The chance of getting a four in rolling two dice is 3/36 because you can get a 1-3 or a 3-1 or a 2-2 and the total number of possible outcomes is 36. So the probability is 3/36 or 1/12 or .0833333…. or 8.33333%.

We should notice that a greater number of possible outcomes results in a smaller probability of any one of them occurring. Any outcome of tossing a single coin (only two possible outcomes) has a greater probability than any possible outcome of tossing a die (six possible outcomes). We also note that tossing two dice creates many more possible outcomes (36) and hence the probability of any particular outcome is considerably reduced. In Mathematics, this last phenomenon is termed “joint occurrence”. Joint occurrence calculations give us the probability of event A and event B both occurring by chance.

We say two or more events are independent when the outcome of any particular one has nothing to do with the outcome of the others. Tossing one coin twice or tossing two coins at the same time are examples of independent events. To calculate the probability of joint, independent events we simply multiply the probability of one by the probability of the other or others. Since probability is always a fraction between 0 and 1 we always come up with smaller and smaller probabilities as the number of joint events increases (unless we are dealing with certainties). That means that getting all heads when tossing 5 coins is much less likely than getting all heads when only tossing one coin (3.125% as opposed to 50%).

What does this have to do with evidence of God’s existence? Let’s look at some examples:

Example #1. You walk into a room. There is a table in the room and among the normal clutter there are five coins on the table. All the coins are heads up. What do you conclude? The odds of five coins being all heads up on the table is 1/32. By chance there is only one way all the coins could end up all heads. There are 31 ways that they can end up not all heads up. (They must be either all heads up or not all heads up by the law of the excluded middle). What would a reasonable, unbiased, rational person conclude when finding himself in a room with a table with five coins on it all heads up? It is possible that it just happened by chance but it is much more probable and reasonable that someone was arranging things that way. It is 31 times more probable that someone was arranging things. Suppose there are fifteen coins on the table all heads up? In that case the odds of all fifteen coins being heads up is 1/32,768. There is still only one way you can get all heads. There are 32,767 ways of getting “not all heads”. From this example we see that the odds of fall drastically as the number of joint occurrences increases.

Example #2. Four students go out of town for the college football game knowing that on Monday they have a math exam. None of them prepare for the test and do not show for the exam. On Tuesday they all come wanting to take the test saying that they went to the game, had a flat tire, and didn’t get back in time to take the test on Monday. The professor agrees to give them the test immediately and has each student sit in one of the far corners of the room. He announces that there will be only one question on the test. Each student receives a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. The professor writes the following question on the board: “Which tire?” What are the odds that, without prior planning or collusion, they will all give the same answer? There are four ways they can all agree out of 256 possible outcomes. What if the number of students had been eight going to the game in a van? In that case the odds of all eight students agreeing which tire blew out, without planning or collusion would be 4 out of 65,536 or .00006103515625.

The odds drop off very quickly when we are looking at “joint occurrences”. Joint occurrences are cases where all four students must agree, for example. These examples use very simple circumstances (heads or tails, four students and four tires on the car, etc.) The real world is much more complex. When talking of the origins of the universe or of life it is universally acknowledged that many highly unlikely circumstances would have had to have occurred jointly for the universe and life to have come into being by chance. This joint occurrence makes the odds astronomical against such a thing happening. The probability of life and the universe coming into existence by chance is not easy to calculate but it is generally agreed that the odds are extremely small.* If it was not by chance then it must have been designed or arranged.

Observation: Some believe that even highly unlikely events will eventually take place given enough time. Is this true? For more on this see the study entitled “Chance and Intelligent Design Part 4 dealing with the difference between independent and dependent events and probability.

* Richard Dawkins, staunch evolutionist and popular writer calculates that the odds of the DNA code developing twice by chance is one in a million, million, million, million, million. A River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins, p. 12.

Exercises:

Explain why the probability of joint occurrences drops off as the number of possible outcomes increases.

Come up with an example of your own showing the unlikelihood of joint occurrences.

If the probability of the DNA code developing independently twice is one in 1030, what would be the odds for it developing just once? Would you consider this a good probability?

Chance and Intelligent Design (part 2)

By James A. Choury, serving with WorldVenture in North Brazil

[Leia este artigo em português]

What do Logic and the laws of probability have to do with evidence of God’s existence? The first verse of the Bible states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Psalm 19.1-4 and Romans 1.20 tell us that the creation proclaims God’s existence and His invisible attributes and that that proclamation is intelligible to mankind to such an extent that not heeding it leads to man’s condemnation.

How does the creation proclaim God’s existence and invisible attributes to such an extent as to leave any one who does not recognize Him without excuse?

At least a part of the answer is to be found in the probability calculus. In the study of probability we learn that complex and interrelated phenomenon very seldom happen simply by chance. When we find something complex and interrelated the rational inclination is to assume that it was designed or prearranged. So the proclamation of God’s existence, power and divine nature are revealed by creation’s order and complexity because experience and an understanding of mathematics tell us that complex and interrelated things come about through design. Discussions about God’s existence naturally (and, as we shall see later, necessarily) revolve around the issue of chance or design.←

Let’s return to the Law of the Excluded Middle described in Part I. Logically we can affirm that life and the universe came about by chance or they came about by “not chance”. It was either chance or not chance and it must have been one or the other. If it was chance then we are automatically driven into the area of Mathematics and the Probability Calculus. If it was chance it is logical to ask “what are the odds?” “Are they good odds?”* Is chance a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe and of life?

If we consider the only other logical alternative, “not chance”, what are we driven to there? When we say something resulted from “not chance” we are talking about design or some kind of intelligent intervention.

We are caught between two options by the law of the excluded middle. Chance or not chance. Can we agree that “not chance” is just another way of saying “design”? If so, we are talking about chance or design. Can there be design without intelligence? If not, we are talking about chance or intelligent design. No other options. That’s the Law! The Law of the Excluded Middle.

Now, some astute thinker may propose a third alternative: “It may have been partly by chance and partly by design”. Good thinking! But this option only leads us back to the former genuine dilemma. If part was by chance we need to know which part? If some part was by chance we need to ask what are the odds? If part was by design we need to ask who or what was the designer? No, there is no escape along that avenue. The Law of the Excluded Middle is only strengthened by that third, proposed alternative.

We have demonstrated that the Law of the Excluded Middle, when applied to the existence of life and the universe, leaves us with only two rational options: “chance” or “not chance”. If we chose “chance” we are faced with some hard questions about the probability of such chance. If we chose “not chance” we fall logically into affirming that life and the universe are a result of design and are faced with the question of the designer’s existence and identity.

Exercises:

1. Write a short essay on the thoughts found in Genesis 1.1, Psalm 19.1-4 and Romans 1.20.
2. Try to come up with a third possibility for the existence of life and the universe not included in the above options of “chance” or “not chance”.

Chance or Intelligent Design ? (part 1)

By James Andrew Choury, serving with WorldVenture in North Brazil September, 2005

[Leia este artigo em português]

Logic and Mathematics. What have these disciplines to do with evidence of God’s existence?

The Law of the Non Contradiction is a fundamental law of logic. The law states that a proposition and its contradictory can never both be true. In symbols we write [ ~ (A & -A)] where the & symbol means that both A and ~A are true and the tilde (~) means “not”. This phrase is logically equivalent to (A v ~ A) which tells us that one or the other (A or ~A) must be true without exceptions (this by the way is called the Law of the Excluded Middle). In short, the Law of Non Contradiction tells us that a proposition and its contradictory are never both true and the Law of the Excluded Middle tells us that one of them must be true. A more classical way of describing contradictories is that one is the negation of the other and they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Logical conversation about any subject must observe these basic laws of deduction.

Examples of the Law of Non Contradiction/Law of the Excluded Middle: *

This table is rectangular or this table is not rectangular.
Two plus two is four or two plus two is not four.
The Bible was inspired by God or the Bible was not inspired by God.
Christ rose from the dead or Christ did not rise from the dead.
My name is James or my name is not James.

In order to more fully understand this important concept let’s imagine a typical closet. We will very likely find shoes, shirts, trousers, umbrellas, coats, hats, baseball bats, gloves, table games on the shelves and many other odds and ends. Let’s have the closet represent any given collection of things. We can go through the closet and sort out everything in it. We can divide everything into two categories, say shoes and not shoes. In another sorting we can do trousers and not trousers. Stuff to throw out and stuff not to throw out. In any given sorting everything in the closet will fall into one of two categories. In every case we will end up with two piles (one pile may not have anything in it and that, in mathematics, is called the empty set). That is what the Law of the Excluded Middle tells us. Nothing will be both a shoe and not a shoe. Every item will be either a shoe or not a shoe.

Of course we must first define our terms and eliminate any ambiguities. But, when all has been clarified, any rational conversation must recognize and respect the Laws of the Excluded Middle and Non Contradiction. Let’s always remember that it is impossible for a proposition and its contradictory to both be true. It is logically necessary that either a proposition or its contradictory be true, i.e., one of them must be true!

Still unconvinced? Try to disprove the Law. Think of any collection of things (in mathematics called a set) and try to come up with something within the set that is both X and not X where X is some unambiguous quality or quantity. Don’t forget that X must be defined unambiguously.

More examples:

The set of all animals can be sorted into mammals and non-mammals.
The set of all vehicles can be sorted into front wheel drive and not front wheel drive vehicles.
The set of all athletes can be sorted into Olympic Gold Medal winners and not Olympic Gold Medal winners.
The set called “furniture” can be sorted into chairs and non chairs.
The set of all beings can be sorted into the categories of divine and not divine.

Remember that a very important part of logical debate and conversation is clear definition. When things are clearly defined we will never find a case where a proposition and its contradictory are both true. We will always find that one of them must be true.

* Aristotle correctly codified these basic laws of deduction together with the Law of Identity and for well over a thousand years they were believed to be the fundamental “laws of thought”. With the development of modern symbolic logic one plainly sees that these three statements are logically equivalent and express the same truth in three different ways. Although they may not deserve the elevated position attributed to them by the ancients they are very definitely inescapable and true.

Note: Some objections have been raised asserting that the Law of the Excluded Middle makes everything either black or white. This is a misunderstanding of the Law. The Law of the Excluded middle actually makes everything either black or not black, round or not round, tall or not tall, etc. when, of course, these terms are well defined.

Exercises:

1. See if you can formulate the Law of Identity for yourself or do some research and find it formulated.
2. Come up with five more examples of the Law of the Excluded Middle.
3. Define the following items or concepts leaving as little ambiguity as possible:
A. a tree
B. a book
C. a box
D. imperialism
E. rectangular
4. Check your definition against that of a good dictionary. How did you do? How did the dictionary do?

Finding Treasure in Trash

Chuck Missler
from the December 13, 2005 eNews issue

[Leia este artigo em Português]

It has been just over fifty years since the discovery of DNA - a discovery which has radically transformed modern science and changed how many look at the origin of life. The Human Genome Project has mapped our entire genetic code, which consists of a sequence of over 3 billion chemical nucleotide bases. DNA research has lead to the discovery of genetic cures for diseases. It has also resulted in faster and more accurate diagnosis of diseases, and assisted doctors in developing customized treatment plans for patients.

Although scientists have learned a great deal about the human genome, the overwhelming majority of DNA remains a complete mystery. For all the new advances made in genetics, we are constantly discovering how complex the DNA really is and how much more we have to learn. Scientists still do not know the exact number of genes, their exact locations, or their functions. Nor do they know much about gene regulation, DNA sequence regulation, chromosomal structure and organization, or non-coding DNA. The list of things we have yet to learn about DNA goes on and on. What we do know about DNA is that it is a digital, error-correcting, and self-replicating code. Within its complicated and elegant structure is held the blueprints of every living thing on the planet.

Scientists have spent years studying our genes. The human genome contains over 3 billion chemical nucleotide bases, of which the total number of genes is estimated at 30,000 to 35,000. The average gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene containing 2.4 million bases. Most scientists believe the really crucial part of DNA is the genes - which codes for proteins - the so-called "building blocks of life.” A few other sections that regulate gene function are also considered useful, but the vast majority of DNA is considered simply “excess baggage.” In fact, when the Human Genome Project began some scientists only wanted to map the sections of genome that coded for protein. Mapping the rest was considered a “waste of time.” What most people don’t realize is this: not only does the function of over half our genes remain unknown, but less than 5 percent of the genome encodes for the production of proteins

So if the coding part of our DNA makes up less than 5 percent of our entire genome, what about the other 95 percent of our DNA? The other 95 percent of our DNA, which scientists have dubbed non-coding DNA, has no known function and is also referred to by scientists as “junk DNA.” Within a chromosome or a genome, the junk DNA is those portions of the DNA for which no function has been identified or intuited. In the genomes of most plants and animals, an overwhelming percentage of the DNA serves no known biological role. There are some non-coding DNA that are known to be important. These include origins of replication, which define the starting points of DNA replication and regulatory sequences, but the overwhemling majority of junk DNA remains a mystery.

One hypothesis about the junk is that these chromosomal regions are trash heaps of defunct genes, sometimes known as pseudogenes, which have been cast aside and fragmented during evolution. Some scientists believe it is the accumulated DNA of failed viruses. Yet another hypothesis is that the junk DNA provides a reservoire of sequence from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge.
Junk DNA May Not Be Junk

However, new evidence suggests that junk DNA may not be junk after all. In recent months scientists have made several discoveries that suggest some of this previously overlooked DNA has a very specific and vital role. Scientists have found evidence to suggest that sections of non-coding DNA actually contribute to healthy limb and heart muscle development. Other sections have been found to regulate the secretion of insulin in the pancreas - a discovery which could help in developing treatments and cures for diabetes. The study of junk DNA may also help scientists understand birth defects and fight disease.

Instead of being a trash heap of failed evolutionary attempts, evidence suggests that non-coding DNA may serve a distinct and vital purpose. The patterns found in non-coding DNA are not random after all, as some scientists suspected. A study conducted last year by David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, compared the genome sequences of a man, mouse and rat. They found - to their astonishment - that several great stretches of DNA were identical across the three species. To be certain that the patterns were not simply a coincidence, they looked for sequences that were at least 200 base pairs in length. Statistically, a sequence of this length would almost never appear in all three by chance. However they did not find just one, they found 481. No less than 481 distinct sequences, each consisting of at least 200 base pairs, that were common, not only to rats, mice, and humans, but were also found in DNA samples from chickens, dogs, and fish.
Common Ancestor or Common Creator?

Most of our so-called junk DNA still remains a mystery. But whatever the function is, it is clearly of great importance. According to Professor Haussler, “the most likely scenario is that they control the activity of indispensable genes and embryo development. Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may help slice RNA, and the conserved elements that do not actually overlap with genes tend to cluster next to genes that play a role in embryonic development.” Researchers have begun to refer to these sequences of non-coding DNA as “conserved elements” or “ultra-conserved” DNA. They call it “ultra-conserved” because according to the evolutionary theory it has been about 400 million years since humans, rodents, chickens, and fish have shared a common ancestor, and despite 400 million years of evolution these sequences have resisted change, suggesting that any alteration of the DNA would damage the animal’s ability to survive.

Secular scientists may see these new discoveries as additional evidence that humans and animals share a common ancestor, rather than a common Creator, but we believe random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. The chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. The probability of spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It’s impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design.

Beloved Numerologist

by Chuck Missler

________________________________________

[Leia este arigo em português]

The numerical structure of the Bible has been studied closely, being the subject of numerous volumes in the past.1 But none are more provocative than the works of Dr. Ivan Panin.2
Ivan Panin was born in Russia on December 12, 1855. Having participated in plots against the Czar at an early age, he was exiled and, after spending some years studying in Germany, he came to the United States and entered Harvard University. After graduation in 1882, he converted from agnosticism to Christianity.

In 1890 he discovered some of the phenomenal mathematical designs underlying both the Greek text of the New Testament and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

He was to devote over 50 years of his life painstakingly exploring the numerical structure of the Scriptures, generating over 43,000 detailed, hand-penned pages of analysis (and exhausting his health in the process). He went on to be with the Lord in his 87th year, on October 30, 1942.

The Heptadic Structure

The recurrence of the number seven - or an exact multiple of seven - is found throughout the Bible and is widely recognized. The Sabbath on the seventh day; the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine in Egypt; the seven priests and seven trumpets marching around Jericho; the Sabbath Year of the land are well-known examples.

Also, Solomon's building the Temple for seven years, Naaman's washing in the river seven times, and the seven churches, seven lamp stands, seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls, seven stars, and so on in the Book of Revelation, all show the consistent use of the number seven.

But there turns out to be much more below the surface. Ivan Panin noted the amazing numerical properties of the Biblical texts - both the Greek of the New Testament and the Hebrew of the Old Testament. These are not only intriguing to discover, they also demonstrate an intricacy of design which testifies to a supernatural origin!

Vocabulary

One of the simplest - and most provocative - aspects of the Biblical text is the vocabulary used. The number of vocabulary words in a passage is normally different from the total number of words in a passage. Some words are repeated. It is easy, for example, to use a vocabulary of 500 words to write an essay of 4,000 words.

An Example

The first 17 verses of the Gospel of Matthew are a logical unit, or section, which deals with a single principal subject: the genealogy of Christ. It contains 72 Greek vocabulary words in these initial 17 verses. (The verse divisions are man's allocations for convenience, added in the 13th century.)

The number of words which are nouns is exactly 56, or 7 x 8.
The Greek word "the" occurs most frequently in the passage: exactly 56 times, or 7 x 8. Also, the number of different forms in which the article "the" occurs is exactly 7.
There are two main sections in the passage: verse 1-11, and 12-17. In the first main section, the number of Greek vocabulary words used is 49, or 7 x 7.

Why not 48, or 50?

Of these 49 words, the number of those beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7 x 4. The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7 x 3.
The total numbers of letters in these 49 words is 266, or 7 x 38 - exactly! The number of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7 x 20. The number of consonants is 126, or 7 x 18 - exactly.
Of the 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7 x 5. The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7 x 2. The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7 x 6. The number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.
The number of the 49 Greek vocabulary words which are nouns is 42, or 7 x 6. The number of words which are not nouns is 7. Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or exactly 7 x 5. These 35 names are used 63 times, or 7 x 9. The number of male names is exactly 28, or 7 x 4. These male names occur 56 times or 7 x 8. The number which are not male names is 7.
Three women are mentioned - Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The number of Greek letters in these three names is 14, 7 x 2.
The number of compound nouns is 7. The number of Greek letters in these 7 nouns is 49, or 7 x 7.
Only one city is named in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains exactly 7 letters.
And on it goes. To get an indication of just how unique these properties are, try the example in the inset.

Gemetria

There are even more features in the numerical structure of the words themselves. As you may know, both Hebrew and Greek uses the letters of the alphabet for numerical values. Therefore, any specific word - in either Hebrew or Greek - has a numerical value of its own by adding up the values of the letters in that particular word. The study of the numerical values of words is called gemetria.
The 72 vocabulary words add up to a gametrical value of 42,364, or 7 x 6,052. Exactly. If one Greek letter was changed, this would not happen.
The 72 words appear in 90 forms - some appear in more than one form. The numeric value of the 90 forms is 54,075, or 7 x 7,725. Exactly.
We will defer other examples of gametrical properties of the Biblical text for subsequent articles, but it becomes immediately obvious that hidden below the surface are aspects of design that cannot be accidental or just coincidence. Remember, the rabbis say that "coincidence" is not a kosher word!

Other Implications

There are words in the passage just described that occur nowhere else in the New Testament. They occur 42 times (7 x 6) and have 126 letters (7 x 18). How was this organized?
Even if Matthew contrived this characteristic into his Gospel, how could he have known that these specific words - whose sole characteristic is that they are found nowhere else in the New Testament - were not going to be used by the other writers? Unless we assume the absurd hypothesis that he had an agreement with them, he must have had the rest of the New Testament before him when he wrote his book. The Gospel of Matthew, then, must have been written last.

It so happens, however, that the Gospel of Mark exhibits the same phenomenon. It can be demonstrated that it would have had to be written "last." The same phenomenon is found in Luke. And in John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul. Each would have had to write after the other in order to contrive the vocabulary frequencies! You can demonstrate that each of the New Testament books had to have been "written last."

There is no human explanation for this incredible and precise structure. It has all been supernaturally designed. We simply gasp, sit back, and behold the skillful handiwork of the God who keeps His promises.

And we are indebted to the painstaking examinations and lifetime commitment of Dr. Ivan Panin for uncovering these amazing insights.
Isn't God - and His remarkable Word - fun?

This article was originally published in the
February 1995 Personal Update NewsJournal.

________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. McCormack, R., "The Heptadic Structure of Scripture," Marshall Brothers Ltd., London, 1923; E.W. Bullinger, Numbers of the Scriptures; F.W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (7 vols.); Browne, Ordo Saeculoreium, et al.
2. Ivan Panin (various works), "Bible Numerics," P.O. Box 206, Waubaushene, Ontario, L0K 2C0.

What Holds the Universe Together?

by Lambert Dolphin

________________________________________

Is our universe expanding or static? If it is expanding, is there sufficient mass to cause it all to collapse back in upon itself under gravity's influence? If the universe is static and not now expanding, is it stable?

What holds it all together-if anything?

These are questions gaining more attention these days as our knowledge data base in astronomy and astrophysics increases, and old theories are brought into question. There is much that can be said about these questions from the Biblical revelation.

New Testament References

Several separate passages in the New Testament make reference to the creation of the universe. For example, John's gospel speaks of an earlier state of existence than is described in Verse 1 of Genesis:

"In the beginning was the Word, [logos] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; [i.e., before creation] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:1-3

This passage teaches that Jesus was eternally existent with God the Father prior to the creation of "all things." There was a time when our material and spiritual universe did not exist. It had a definite beginning. But before that, God was. In fact, God is-because time itself was created by God.

Chapter One of Paul's Epistle to the Colossians gives a further description of the role of Jesus in creation, consistent with that of John's gospel:

[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born [prototokos] of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities [these words in Greek refer to the hierarchical angelic powers]-all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17

The Holy Spirit, in giving us this inspired passage of Scripture, explains that all things (both visible and invisible) in the entire universe were created through this same Jesus, the eternal Word. We may think of the universe and its intricate design as being conceived in the mind of the Father, then spoken into existence by the Son (who makes the invisible, visible). The Holy Spirit is the One who energizes and supplies life to the creation, not only at the time of creation but also moment by moment after that.

We are also told that all things were created for Jesus. He is "the heir of all things." That means that we are house guests in Someone Else's universe! This implies a future accountability for all of us-history is headed somewhere-at the end of the road stands Jesus, to whom all power and authority has already been given (see John 5:22-29).

A. W. Tozer, Pastor at Moody Bible Church in Chicago some 50 years ago, once wrote of this as follows:

The teaching of the New Testament is that now, at this very moment, there is a Man in heaven appearing in the presence of God for us. He is as certainly a man as was Adam or Moses or Paul; he is a man glorified, but his glorification did not de-humanize him. Today he is a real man, of the race of mankind, bearing our lineaments and dimensions, a visible and audible man, whom any other man would recognize instantly as one of us.

But more than this, he is the heir of all things, Lord of all lords, head of the church, firstborn of the new creation. He is the way to God, the life of the believer, the hope of Israel, and the high priest of every true worshiper. He holds the keys of death and hell, and stands as advocate and surety for everyone who believes on him in truth. Salvation comes not by accepting the finished work, or deciding for Christ; it comes by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the whole, living, victorious Lord who, as God and man, fought our fight and won it, accepted our debt as his own and paid it, took our sins and died under them, and rose again to set us free. This is the true Christ; nothing less will do.

All Things "Hold Together"

One of the key words in the Colossians passage above ("...and in Christ all things hold together") is the Greek word sunistemi which means "to stand-together," "to be compacted together," "to cohere," "to be constituted with."

This passage can be applied to the structure of the atom, for example. The nucleus of every atom is held together by what physicists call "weak" and "strong" forces.
[Physicists today are familiar with four basic forces in the natural world: gravity and electrical forces, plus a "strong" and a "weak" nuclear force. The first two forces decrease in strength inversely with the square of the distance between two objects; the latter two forces act only at very short ranges.]

The nucleus of the atom contains positively charged and neutral particles-to use a simplistic model. Mutual electrostatic repulsion between the like-positive protons would drive the nucleus apart if it were not for the "strong force" which binds the nucleus together.

There is thus an active force imposed on the universe, which actively holds the very atoms of the material world together moment by moment, day by day, century by century.

Similarly, accelerated electrons circling the nucleus should quickly radiate all their energy away and fall into the nucleus unless there exists an invisible energy source to counteract this.

The third New Testament creation-related passage which talks about atomic structure and physics is found in the Apostle Peter's Second Epistle:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise [rhoizedon, a rushing roar] and the elements [stoicheion, atoms] will be dissolved with fire and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10 The Greek word translated "elements" in the above mentioned passage from Colossians (and in 2 Peter also) is stoicheion, which can mean "the building blocks of the universe," or "the ordered arrangement of things." It can also mean the "atomic elements." The word translated "dissolved" in 2 Peter 3:10 is literally (in Greek) luo, meaning "unloosed." This language suggests that there will come a time in the future when God lets go of the nuclear forces which hold the atom together. This passage, like the one in Colossians, strongly suggests that the active power of God is behind the mysterious strong force that holds every atomic nucleus together. If this is so, all the other fundamental forces of nature are likewise forces that originate with Christ and His sustaining direction of the old creation.

Sustaining the Universe

If God "sustains the universe by His mighty word of power," moment by moment, were He to merely relax His grasp on the universe, every atom would come apart "by fire" (that is, by nuclear fire). It is inescapable that the Bible claims that God dynamically sustains the universe, including the very atoms themselves. Atoms, it would seem, are "stable" only because force and energy are being supplied into their physical nuclear binding fields from "outside" the system.
Whatever we may think of God and physics, the Bible leaves us with no room to doubt that God does care about the sparrow that falls to the ground, the widow, the orphan, and the homeless. He does not lose track of His children and watches over them with infinite, patient, intimate Fatherly care. Not only does He sustain the universe by His mighty word of power, God also alters the status quo from time to time and, in response to prayer, frequently changes the course of entire nations. In a future day his intrusive reinterven-tion will be very radical indeed.
Another important claim of Scripture about the old creation is that God is the present Sustainer of the universe. That is, He is not uninvolved, remote, detached and impersonal-leaving things to run by themselves by any means.

Among secular scientists today there are many who acknowledge that God exists. But He is usually considered as only a First Cause-the One who brought the universe into existence and set it into motion. But most of these same scientists assume God was not involved after the initial act of creation.

This is contrary to clear statements in the Bible that God is very much involved in every event that takes place in the ongoing history of the entire universe. Causality links everything together, because God "works (Gr: energizes) all things according to the counsel of His will." (Ephesians 1:11.)

The opening verses of the Letter to the Hebrews give us another New Testament picture of God's role in the creation:

[But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time-[that is] [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order]. He is the sole expression of the glory of God-[the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine],-and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God's] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power..." Hebrews 1:2-3 (Amplified Bible)

A fifth great New Testament passage concerning Jesus and His place in creation is found in Revelation Chapter 1:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet... When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades." Revelation 1:8-10,17-18

Here Jesus is called "the Alpha and Omega," "the First and the Last." Not only is Jesus the Son of God to be found at the beginning of history, He also stands at the end of history and at the end of every life. He is the Judge of all, and He is the heir of all things.

Science and the Bible

Truth from science must in the long run agree with Biblical revelation-if the Bible is true. If the Bible "says what it means and means what it says" (to quote Chuck Missler) then it is Jesus who holds the universe in his hands just as the old American folk spiritual says.

Our moment-by-moment existence depends on His gracious sustenance of every electron, every atom, every molecule and every spiritual entity as well. We are safe when we place our trust in Him and put our whole lives into His hands! Can we not then stand in awe of our great God and Creator, along with the Psalmist who wrote:

"O come, let us sing to the LORD; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation! Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise! For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods. In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. The sea is his, for he made it; for his hands formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. O that today you would hearken to his voice!" Psalm 95:1-7

Next month, God willing, we'll look further at this subject in a discussion of theories of the vacuum, and the interaction between the material creation and the invisible, intangible (but very real) spiritual world which God has also created around us and within which the material world is embedded.

This article was originally published in the
January 1997 Personal Update NewsJournal.

The Human Genome

by Carol Loeffler
________________________________________

The announcement of the completion of human genome mapping has brought some interesting - if not amusing and contradictory - responses from the scientific community about what the map tells us. These differences reveal the growing chasm in the scientific community over the subject of origins and the "end of science." More and more, scientists are being confronted by the fact that science has failed to answer core questions regarding the origins of the universe and life, and the evidence is contradicting much of what has been traditionally believed about Darwinism.

Two articles, which appeared on February 16, 2001, were directly contradictory to each other. They both featured scientists reacting to the genome-mapping project.
The first article, entitled "Darwin Vindicated," was written by Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The professor asserts that "the genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their Bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, 'The proof is right here, in our genes.'" 1

From reading the article, one would be sure that science had once and for all proven the Bible wrong. However, Professor Caplan did not work on the genome project. On the same day, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled, "Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine." It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, "We're deliciously complex at the molecular level...We don't understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There's still a metaphysical, magical element." He went on to say, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life...the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed."2 As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, "There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me."

The contradiction between these two views is really a clash between two worldviews. Dr. Caplan seized upon the similarities in genetic code as proof that humans and so-called simpler life forms descended from a common ancestor. In his eagerness to affirm evolution, he excluded the possibility that an intelligent creator may have used the same functional coding system for more than one species.

Ironically, many of the same scientists who deny the complex coding system of the DNA molecule as evidence of intelligent design also support the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, which searches the far reaches of the galaxy for the signs of non-random, non-periodic radio signals as signs of alien intelligence. Their bias against God has blinded them to other possible explanations for the scientific data collected.

While the Human Genome Project has successfully produced a map of the human genome, it has yet to map the proteins encoded by our genes. Only one-third of the genes in the human body have been identified by function. 3 Furthermore, just over a third of the human genome contains repetitive sequences that scientists label "junk DNA" because, at the moment, they don't appear to have any function.4 What we do know about the DNA code is that it is digital, error-correcting, redundant, and self-replicating. For all the new advances made in genetics, we are constantly discovering how complex the DNA really is and how much more we have to learn. What has been called "the Book of Life" is more like a library.5 The field is so complex that President Bush is considering a proposal to hire a biotechnology coordinator to act as coordinator among government agencies and scientists in this rapidly changing field.6

The Battle for Minds

There are numerous admissions emerging in the technical literature about serious "problems" with random chance accounting for such complex DNA design, but it goes virtually untold by the gurus of the pop science culture of evolution and their publications.7 Few people outside the scientific disciplines read the actual literature, and the gurus aren't about to tell the public that their prize theory is in real trouble. A new book by Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, is a bold exposé on the fraudulent support for evolution, which continues to be published in school textbooks and taught as fact. For example, "...evidence for Darwin's theory: peppered moths. Before 1820, most peppered moths were light colored, but during the industrial revolution they became mostly dark colored. In theory, the shift occurred because light colored moths were more visible against pollution-darkened tree trunks and thus were eaten by predatory birds. Textbooks typically illustrate this story with photographs of peppered moths on tree trunks. In the 1980s, however, biologists discovered that peppered moths in the wild don't rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs were staged-often by gluing or pinning dead moths in place."8

In reality, the current battle of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design seems more a matter of philosophical debate than evaluation of scientific evidence. The Darwinists are beginning to show the classic, desperate signs of a failing philosophy as their arguments become more and more irrational in an attempt to prop up something that is quickly being refuted. As the dispute rages in the future, keep in mind that making those arguments are brilliant minds: minds capable of analyzing complex data, imagining, theorizing and extrapolating. Those minds are obviously a triumph of random chance...not!

This article was originally published in the
April 2001 Personal Update NewsJournal.

________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. Caplan, Arthur, "Darwin Vindicated!" MSNBC, February 21, 2001.
2. Abate, Tom, "Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine," San Francisco Chronicle.com February 19, 2001.
3. Patrizio, Andy, "Genome Effort Hits Home," Wired News, February 17, 2001.
4. Belsie, Laurent, "The Short, Simple Human Gene Map," Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2001.
5. Jasny, Barbara R. and Kennedy, Donald, "The Human Genome," Science Magazine, February 16, 2001.
6. Rosenberg, Ronald, "Bush May Hire Biotech Coordinator," The Boston Globe, February 21, 2001.
7. Meyers, Dr. Steve, Interview with Dr. Meyers, Director of the Center for Renewal in Science and Culture, Seattle, on the Steel on Steel Radio Program, www.steelonsteel.com, March 10, 2001.
8. Wells, Jonathan, "Let's Change Science Standards And Let Students Do Real Science," Philadelphia Inquirer, December 11, 2000.