Appendices: 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 || 10 || 11

Appendix 1.  The New Inflationary Theory of the Universe

   To explain how the universe came into being, any sensible mathematical theory of origins must address the widely held conviction among scientists that the space-time fabric of the present universe is very flat — a situation that corresponds to extremely high mixing and, therefore, large homogeneity and entropy. (The entropy is greater than 10⁸⁷.) Yet, at the same time, telescopes reveal that stars collect into galaxies, which in turn gather into clusters, and that some of the clusters even collect into superclusters.¹ Any mathematical theory of the universe must, therefore, explain at least two things: (1) The present homogeneous smoothness over large (long-range) distances, and (2) the gathering of stars into galaxies and clusters over small (short-range) distances.

   Astrophysicists have explained this state of affairs through the New Inflationary Theory. This can be viewed as a refined version of the older Big Bang Theory. It is highly mathematical, and teaches that the universe underwent a rapid exponential expansion in its very early moments. During the rapid expansion, causality produced long-range homogeneous mixing and localized inhomogeneous seeds that later coalesced the galaxies and clusters. This mathematical description of our universe also explains the absence at the present time of certain large particles known as magnetic monopoles, and the huge entropy due to the mixing mentioned earlier.

   It is significant that the New Inflationary Theory has been so successful. The reason is that it essentially stands alone in explaining the absence of the large massive monopoles that are missing from the present universe. These large particles are predicted by virtually every elementary particle theory through symmetry reduction to a direct product with a U(1) group, and, as such, it was thought their presence would be necessary to any successful theory. In addition, the high mixing and entropy are very nicely explained by assuming that the universe expands in certain ways allowed by the New Inflationary Theory, supercooling over an extended time period followed by the release of latent heat through a first-order phase transition into a metastable state. However, when we use the New Inflationary Theory to examine the earlier idea that a quantum fluctuation may have produced the universe out of nothing, we find that quantum fluctuations are not a "free lunch" from nature — a conclusion that we can hold with reasonable confidence in view of the many successes of the New Inflationary Theory.

The Final Straw: "Causality"

   Suppose, for the sake of argument, that despite all of what has been considered, we choose to defend the belief that the universe arose through a natural event. On the surface it would seem all we need to do is reject the New Inflationary Theory that disqualified a quantum fluctuation from making a universe. Then we could say that the universe did not expand in the way described. Furthermore, we could even attempt to justify our belief by noting that energy positivity is not satisfied in the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems.² Moreover, we can claim that the large-scale mixing (flatness and high entropy) throughout the universe is due either to black holes evaporating or to internal rearrangements within the universe. The former can be thought of as cosmic vacuum cleaners disappearing from outer space, and the latter as high-heat production from homogenizing the initial chaos. But if we elect to go this route, and abandon the rapid expansion taught by the New Inflationary

Page 157

Theory, we are left with the following question that would appear to be insuperable: How do regions of the early universe that are causally disconnected become so uniform in their later history?

   Thus far, the only good answer is that this later history somehow preexisted in the initial condition that gave it birth. If so, then the present large-scale mixing (huge entropy) means that the universe originated from an initial state that was so "ordered" (virtually zero gravitational entropy) that its existence through natural means strains the bounds of credulity. Stated differently, for our universe to have survived more than a Planck time (10^-43 seconds), it must have been tuned to better than fifty decimal places.

   It further means that indescribable upheaval identifiable with extreme disequilibrium processes attended the early growth of the universe. If so, it would be virtually impossible for the initial condition to causally influence its later history in any direct way. Thus far the only logical solution out of these problems is to suppose that the universe underwent a rapid early expansion, as described by the New Inflationary Theory.

1. Bludman S. Tenth Texas Symposium 375:419.

2. Misner C. et.al. Gravitation (1973) Freeman (27:705/726).

Appendix 2.  Entropy and Disorder

   In 1914 Max Planck (based on Constantin Carathe'dory's 1909 solutions to the Pfaff equation)¹ realized that entropy represented the number of internal configurations possible for a system. These configurations represent the number of microscopically distinct ways a macrostate (classical description) can be realized for a specified energy. The notion of heat exchange followed as a result of this.²

   The application of information theory³ to classical statistical mechanics ⁴ unified the older thermodynamics into quantum statistical mechanics⁵ and paved the way to our modern understanding of entropy.

   We noted earlier that entropy can be correlated — but not identified — with disorder. And we said, moreover, that this correlation is valid in only three cases — ideal gases, isotope mixtures, and crystals near zero degrees Kelvin. The truth of the matter is illustrated by considering the two chemically inert gases, helium, and argon.⁷ In our mind's eye we imagine two balloons, one filled with helium and the other with argon. First, we lower the temperature of both balloons to zero degrees Kelvin. This makes all the gas molecules stop moving in either balloon. Next, we get the molecules moving by heating both balloons to 300 degrees Kelvin (room temperature). Were we to mathematically calculate the increase in entropy, we would find that it was 20 percent higher in the argon balloon than in the helium balloon (154 v. 127 joules per mole per degree Kelvin). But since helium molecules are ten times lighter than argon molecules, they are moving three times faster and thus are more disordered. Here, then, is an example where higher entropy is accompanied by lower disorder, thereby demonstrating that we cannot identify one with the other. In the particular example cited, the greater argon entropy comes from the closer quantum translational energy levels identified with its greater molecular mass as described by the Sackur-Tetrode equation.

   Let's look at another example. Were we to continue dissolving salt in an isolated glass of water, we'd reach supersaturation, a point where the water could not dissolve

Page 158

any more salt. Under certain conditions, the dissolved salt can be made to separate from the water. When crystallization happens the entropy always increases. However, the temperature can go up or down, depending on the kind of salt used and the thermochemistry of the solution.⁸ This means that the motion of the molecules, and therefore the disorder, can go up or down, whereas the entropy always goes up. A less obvious example is the spontaneous freezing of supercooled water.⁹ Again we see that the entropy must increase, whereas the disorder can go up or down.

   Having shown that entropy cannot be identified with disorder, we might ask: What has uncertainty to do with the Second Law? To answer that, we need first to realize that the older ways of stating the Second Law were special cases of the more generalized modern version. For example, the older renderings were only valid for thermodynamic variables, such as measurements of temperature or pressure. However, the new, generalized version is true for any observable whatsoever. Also, the older laws could only be used under equilibrium conditions when things were quiet and at rest. But the New Generalized Second Law is free from this requirement and is valid in nonequilibrium situations as well. But this still doesn't answer the question: How does uncertainty relate to the Second Law?

   Suppose we want to measure the location and speed of one or more of the water molecules mentioned earlier. How could we do it? When we think about that question for a while, it becomes obvious that we must use energy of some kind in order to measure what the molecule is doing. The energy might be in the form of a light beam or an atomic particle or whatever — this part of the question is unimportant for our purpose here. What is important is the fact that an observer or an intelligence must spend energy to acquire information.¹⁰

   The act of using this energy to learn the water molecule's location and speed changes its location and speed. In fact, the more energy we have to use, the more we affect the result that we want to learn. Thus, the goal in such measurements is to use as little energy as possible in order to affect the result as little as possible. However, regardless of how small the energy used, the molecules are affected.

   These considerations impact the New Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which teaches an important and fundamental truth about the physical world. In all such measurements the act of looking at the molecules causes them to move and locate in such a fashion that the observer's uncertainty as to their whereabouts is as high as nature can possibly make it.¹¹ This means that the actual physical location and speed of these molecules in space and time are mysteriously coupled to the knowledge that a living intelligence has regarding their whereabouts.

   Technical people who have been trained to think of entropy in terms of heat exchange can have a difficult time believing that the older ideas are a shadow of reality's invisible embrace of the observer. The notion of identifying a decrease of entropy with "information" is hardly obvious and so unintuitive that even those who have spent a lifetime on the subject receive it with reluctance and resistance.

   Jaynes, for example, recalls a professor at Stanford who gave a widely acclaimed course of Statistical Mechanics and who, despite many luncheon conversations following the lectures, "adamantly rejected all suggestions that there is any connection between entropy and information." ¹² The question he raised was "whose information?" The reason for the question is that whereas different people have different degrees of uncertainty, entropy has a very definite physical magnitude. The answer, of course, lies in understanding that the entropy of any system is the uncertainty of that observer whose only knowledge of its (small scale) inner workings came from observing its (large scale) external indicators.¹³

   For example, consider the hands and numbers on the face of a windup wristwatch. Loosely speaking, the entropy of the wristwatch is my ignorance (uncertainty) of

Page 159

its inner workings when all I have to go on is information from the numbers and hands on its face. Sound obscure? Well, if you don't fully understand it you're in good company, because neither did the professor. As a result, Jaynes spent another five years clarifying the issue.¹⁴ About ten years later, Hobson, Zubarev, and others combined these concepts with quantum mechanics to give mankind a powerful universal tool with which to probe physical reality.¹⁵

   One thing taught by this New Generalized Second Law is that the mere act of our looking at something forces a rearrangement that maximizes our uncertainty of its changed state. In some quarters, scientists are seriously pondering whether or not thinking alters physical matter.¹⁶ Quantum physics has deeper mysteries than this,¹⁷ and Bohr has been quoted as saying: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." One reason this is true is that quantum laws do not describe objects with an independent existence. Instead, they describe statistical relations among observations.

   The principal message here is that the observer is central, because in the final analysis physical reality is what we observe it to be. It exists because we say that it does, and apart from us its existence cannot be rationally defended. In this sense, it has no existence except for the description to which we bear witness. Were we to believe that "something is there" without someone to observe that it is there, how can we demonstrate that what we believe is there is real if there is no one to observe that it is there?

   What we do know is that there is a mysterious correspondence between the pattern of physical laws in the world and the pattern of logical relations in our mind. This is why we can first calculate on paper the rockets we later build, and then see them successfully launched to the moon. But the Bible claims that reality extends beyond the moon and into realms that make the stars seem near. Is this true? Perhaps a better question is: Who of us can say it's not? The Bible declares that not only is it true, but that our destiny resides there.

Appendix 3  ||  Table of Contents

1. Carathe'dory C. Sitz./Ber. Akad. Wiss. (1919) (Berlin) Math./Phys. Kl. :580.

2. Planck M. The Theory of Heat Radiation (1914) NY (tran.); idem. Vorlesungen uber Thermodynamik (1930) Leipzig.

3. Shannon C. (1949) op. cit. Ch. 5.

4. Jaynes E. Phys. Rev. (1957) 106:620; 108:171.

5. Hobson A. Concepts in Statistical Mechanics (1971) Gordon & Breach. Zubarev D. Nonequilibrium Statistical Thermodynamics (1974) Consultants Bureau (trans./1971 Russian original).

6. Zurek W. "Information Transfer in Quantum Measurements" (1983) in Meystre P. & Scully M. Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation & Measurement Theory Plenum (NY).

7. Wright P. Contemp. Phys. (1970) 11(6):581.

8. Brostow W. Science (1972) 178:123.

9. Bridgman P. The Nature of Thermodynamics (1941) Cambridge, MA.

10. Bekenstein J. Phys. Rev. Lett. (1981) 46:623.

11. Hobson A. (1971) ibid. (5:138).

12. Jaynes E. (1981) ibid. Where Do We Stand on Maximum Entropy :41.

13. Hobson A. (1971) op. cit.

14. Jaynes E. (1957) op. cit.

15. Hobson A. (1971) op. cit. also: Zubarev D. op. cit.

16. Jahn R. The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (1981) Westview (Boulder); Stapp H. (1981) ibid. Ch. 4. d'Espagnat B. Sci. Am. (1979) 241:158 Nov. Wheeler J. (1977) ibid. Ch. 4.

17. Everett H. Rev. Mod. Phys. (1957) 29:454. Bell J. Rev. Mod. Phys. (1966) 38:447. and Wooters W. & Zurek W. (1979) Phys. Rev. D19:473.

Appendix 3.  Generalized Entropy

Page 160

   For example, the entropy increase attending the free expansion of a gas results from the increased uncertainty of the location of the molecules. Likewise, the entropy increase associated with the final adiabatic mixture of two gases with dissimilar temperatures arises from the increased uncertainty of the molecular velocities.

   The failure to recognize entropy as the observer's uncertainty arises from the intuitive notion of older ideas that entropy must somehow relate to a mechanical phase function or to some Hamiltonian variable. But this is wrong, and if one insists on understanding entropy in mechanical terms, entropy will never be understood. Entropy is a statistical concept, and has no meaning outside the context of a probability distribution. A probability measures our uncertainty of the occurrence of a single event. Conversely, entropy measures our uncertainty of the occurrence of a collection of events. There are, therefore, as many different entropies as there are probability distributions, and if the distributions describe different entities, the entropies will be unrelated to one another.

   When we speak about the entropy of a system, what we mean by this is the entropy of an observer's data of that system. Some have wrongly held that this forces entropy to be subjective because it then becomes relative to the observer. This is also untrue. Entropy is not relative to the observer, but to the observer's data. It is, therefore, truly objective because it is the same for all observers with the same data.

   However, this is not true for mechanical perceptions such as phase functions and phase points. These are subjective concepts because they cannot be measured in many body systems. As such, they are the metaphysical residue of an older time period.

   The generalized entropy S(t) reduces to the familiar thermodynamic entropy at thermal equilibrium, and in general increases (although it need not be monotonic) as the system approaches equilibrium, i.e.,

Page 161

   These last two relations constitute the New Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics for closed systems.

Appendix 4.  Biological Reactions

   Modern descriptions of chaotic forms of matter are based solely on quantum probabilistic considerations of mass and energy conservation, and our great success in this area indicates that the descriptions fully embrace the nature and content of these statistical ensembles. By way of contrast, however, the energy channels, directed growth, and the stable reproduction that attend living systems are attributes alien to the chaotic motion of matter. Even when external forces are applied, the physical distributions that result do not manifest the plurality of changing concentration gradients and diffusion processes so prevalent in living systems. Were we to ignore these facts and believe that life's traits somehow exist in the motion of matter, it would then imply the ludicrous proposition that physical distributions possess dynamic gradients that are both the effect and the cause of their existence.

   The materialistic proposals are even less credible when we realize that the biological reactions necessary to life occur at the exact locations where they need to occur, and at the precise times. Moreover, they do so both within individual cells and throughout the organism taken as a whole. These reactions create biological harmonies that are foreordained by DNA which is transmitted in a self-sustaining cycle that preserves the information that regulates and conserves the system. This organizational miracle reeks of design — an attribute identified with intelligence, and not chaos.

Appendix 5.  Observations and Reality

   Since the known reality of a physical object has no meaning outside of its description by an observer, and since the complexity of a physical object is measurable solely in terms of information contained in its description, it follows that the observer, the information, and the physical object exist in a relationship that assigns meaning to each only in terms of the other two. This inextricably interrelated interdependence stems from the fact that the substance of intellect (the observer or classical object), the thing observed (the physical or quantum object), and the meaning assigned (the informational or conjunctional object) constitute a mutually exclusive triunity.

   For example, it is meaningless to talk about information without an observer, or to refer to an observer incapable of communicating information, or a physical object that can't be described. For this reason the information contained in an observer's

Page 162

description of a physical object is as much a part of the physical object as it is a part of the observer's description of it. The information obtained by an observer to quantify an object's complexity can be viewed as the ultimate reality of that object. The reason is that modern (quantum) scientific laws do not describe "things" that have an independent existence; they describe statistical relations among observations. Therefore, in the absence of an observer's description of that object, its physical existence cannot be logically defended.

Appendix 6.  Information Content

   Information can be broken down into units commonly referred to as "bits." This should not be confused with "computer bits" whose nomenclature includes the radix. The number of informational bits increases logarithmically as the magnitude of the information grows, which means that large changes of information are measured by comparatively small numbers of bits. This is illustrated below. The number of bits of information corresponding to various library sizes is listed. The average book size is assumed to be 200 pages, and the letters K, M, B respectively denote thousand, million, billion. The 40 million books listed for the Library of Congress is an effective number corresponding to 24 million books, 19 million pamphlets, 3 million maps and 34 million miscellaneous items.

No. Books                     Library                           No. Bits

      1                       N/A                                            32
      1K                     Tiny                                           42
      20K                   Research Lab                             46
    100K                   Public Library                            48
        4M                   Large University                        54
      40M                   Library of Congress                   57
      50B                    All Human Knowledge              70

   The information content of physical systems can be estimated several ways. For example, consider the universe. Its basic particle count is estimated to be of the order of 10⁸⁰. A blueprint specifying a distribution on a scale of this magnitude could contain on the order of 270 bits.

   Another way to estimate an informational specification for the universe is to approximate the information content of a blueprint for planet earth, and then multiply by the appropriate number of planets. Since the earth's mass is about 2 X 10²⁶ tons, and since the weighted mean of the atomic weight of all its elements is 24.3, * and if we assume that the average molecule is composed of at least three atoms, the

Page 163

maximum number of molecules that comprise the earth is of the order of 10⁵⁴. This gives a blueprint containing about 180 bits.

   However, when employing this perspective, each molecule is envisioned within a space equal to one-half the quotient of earth's volume (2.6 X 10¹¹ cubic miles) and the number of mean weighted molecules (1.6 X 10⁵⁴), i.e., a cube of the order of 2.7 X 10^-10 inches on a side. This is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the minimum distance allowed by interatomic bond considerations (about 3.5 X 10^-8 inches for triatomic molecules). If we use this more realistic constraint, the information content is lowered to about 160 bits. Golay independently calculated the information content of the earth from biological considerations and obtained a maximum of 150 bits.²

   As regards the universe, the average number of stars in a galaxy is about 3 X 10¹¹; therefore allowing 2 X 10¹⁰ galaxies to exist out to the visible horizon, and further granting ten planets per star (an extremely generous assumption since not one has been established outside our solar system), estimates of the information content of the universe range from a low of 220 bits (Golay's number) to a high of 235 bits (earth's information extended through a 30 billion light-year diameter space).

   The apparent discrepancy between these numbers and the earlier 270-bit estimate occurs because the latter ignores the information content of the stars. As a practical matter, they are primarily composed of hydrogen and their blueprint is informationally sterile when compared to earth. This, of course, includes our sun. However, if we choose to ignore this fact and artificially infuse the sun with substantive information, then its blueprint can be estimated as follows: The sun's mass is about 2 X 10²² tons giving a maximum of about 10⁵⁸ hydrogen molecules and a blueprint of about 195 bits. Although unrealistically high, extending this to 300 thousand million stars per galaxy and 20 billion galaxies yields two bits short of 270 for the universe. If one wants to force the information content of the universe to a maximum, then a consideration of the number of photons (10⁸⁸) based upon the 3 degree Kelvin background temperature within its space yields 293 bits.

   The reason that biological structures have considerably higher information content lies in the fact that unlike inorganic systems, the sequence of the building blocks is critical to the survival of the structure. Estimates of the information content of protein and bacteria ³ are given in the literature. Typical estimates for bacteria range from a low of 10⁴ bits to a high of over 10¹². The spread is large because the calculations are based on widely differing interpretations of the biological structure.

   However, a reasonable estimate can be made as follows: In the simplest of cells, such as a bacterium, a minimum of one hundred metabolic reactions must be performed by at least that many enzymes. In addition there must be ribosomes to synthesize these enzymes accompanied by RNA and regulatory molecules, as well as a long DNA double helix. The DNA of E. Coli has been well studied ⁴ and its one millimeter genome ⁵ is known to have about 2 million base pairs. Since each base pair triplet recruits enzymes ⁶ in accord with a uniform genetic code, they each define an amino acid residue.⁷ Although the information content at each DNA site depends upon the number of synonymous residues as well as which ones are present, ⁸ we can reasonably estimate the order of magnitude of what we seek by approximating the information at three bits per residue.⁹ This yields an information content for the genome of about 7 X 10⁶ bits.

   Interestingly, a reasonable estimate for the information content of the human body is possible by observing that each of its cells has a total of about 6 X 10⁹ base pairs.¹⁰ Since the genetic code is essentially universal,¹¹ we estimate the information content of a human cell to be about 2 X 10¹⁰ bits.* These results are summarized

Page 164

below. Some believe that all of the DNA may not be useful, and that certain segments may contain no information.¹³ This, of course, means that we are presently unable to understand the function it performs. But even if the information existed along as little as 1 percent of the DNA, its magnitude would still be so vast that the conclusions remain unaltered. The actual estimate, however, is about 60 percent.

      System                       No. Bits

Earth                                   160
Solar System                        170
Universe                               235
Protein                                1500
Simple Bacterium                  7M
Human Cell                          20B

——————————

Page 162:

* In terms of percentages of the whole by weight, the earth consists of: 46:5 O, 28.0Si, 8.1A1, 5.1Fe, 3.5Ca, 2.8Na, 2.5K, 2.0Mg, 0.58Ti, 0.20H, 0.19C1, 0.11P, O.10S plus 0.12 percent trace elements.¹

Page 163:

* There is some evidence that the genetic code may not be universal.¹²

1. Cotterill R. Cambridge Guide to the Material World (1985) Ch. 7:100 Cambridge Univ. Press.

2. Golay M. Anal. Chem. (1961) 33:23A Jun.

3. Setlow R. & Pollard E. Molecular Biophysics (1962) Ch. 3(10):71 Addison -Wesley, Reading, MA.

4. Alfoldi L. "Origin of Amino Acid Sensitivity in Bacteria with RC rel Genotype" in: Monod J. & Borek E. ed. :150 Of Microbes And Life (1971) Columbia Univ. Press, NY.

5. Denhardt D. "The Transmission of the Genetic Message: DNA Structure and Replication" in: Florkin M. et.al. ed. Comprehensive Biochemistry (1977) V.24 Ch. 1:2 Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.

6. Neurath H. Rev. Mod. Phys. (1959) 31(1):185.

7. Lagerkvist U. Am. Sci. (1980) 68:192 Mar-Apr.

8. Yockey H. Jour. Theor. Biol. (1974) 46:369.

9. Yockey H. Jour. Theor. Biol. (1977) 67:365.

10. Davis B. Science (1980) 209:80 Jul 4.

11. Hinegardner R. & Engleberg J. Science (1963) 142:1063 Nov 22 Science (1964) 144:1030 May 22.

12. Science News (1985) 127(12):180.

13. Abelson J. Ann. Rev. Biochem. (1979) 48:1048. Pardue L. and David I Chromosomal Locations of Two DNA Segments that Flank Ribosomal Insertion-like Sequences in Drosophila. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 1981. Lewin R. Science (1982) 218:1293 Dec 24. Douthart R. and Norris F. Science (1982) 217:729 Aug. 20.

Appendix 7.  The Real Message

   An interesting parallel can be seen in the scout bee's message of food, and Christ's message of salvation. Both are a means of survival. If the hive is taken as the world, and the flowers the paradise to be reached after death, then accurate instructions on how to accomplish this are known only by the bee coming from the flowers. A message from any other bee will prove false and bring doom if followed, because he doesn't know where the flowers are. Now picture an eagle flying over fields of flowers and choosing to become a bee so that he can enter the hive with the true message of how to reach the flowers, and you have the Christian parallel of Christ in the form of God choosing to incarnate himself into the man Jesus delivering the only message that can provide safe entrance into the world beyond this one.

Appendix 8.  Reprogramming Humanity

   The Ten Commandments stand today as they were originally given, and they illuminate a standard of human behavior that would usher in Utopia itself were we willing and able to do what they say. Given that we have been unable to do this, the Bible explains that God incarnated himself in virgin-born flesh that was unaffected by Adam's fall, fulfilled his own law by living a sinless life in the person of Christ,

Page 165

and then satisfied divine justice by punishing Jesus for our misconduct. The result was the resurrection and departure of Jesus Christ from the earth and the coming of the Person of God's Spirit as an energizing transmitter for the purpose of reprogramming humanity.¹ Christian doctrine identifies this spiritual reprogramming as a "rebirth" that is essential for eternal life, but explains that it is accepted or rejected by each person individually.

   This view likens human life to a computer composed of hardware (flesh) and software (spirit). The hardware can be pictured as millions of dots (microcircuits) in need of connection, and the software as millions of lines (wires) that define how they are connected. When Adam fell, defects entered both. The "spirit" of a computer can thus be viewed as the way it is internally organized — the lines connecting the dots; a rebirth alters this organization by connecting the dots in a new way. The result is a new spirit, but with dots (flesh) that retain the old defects because they are unchanged. Christian doctrine teaches that they are made new when a new resurrection body is received upon Christ's return to earth. But it also teaches that everyone will not be changed at this time because God will not entrust a supercomputer to a degenerate programmer.

1. In sequence: John 16:7, Luke 23:46; 224:7; Acts 1:9; 2:32-33.

Appendix 9.  The Moral Code

   The biblical account of the origin of this code is interesting. The Old Testament records that it was part of a message initiated by a Supreme Intelligence, and entrusted to the nation of Israel. The partial fulfillment of its many prophecies is contained in the New Testament, which identifies this Intelligence with an eternally existing "Word" that entered the world in the flesh of Jesus Christ. The proof claimed for a divine presence on earth is the bodily resurrection of Christ three days after his public death. The Bible explains that the reason he came to earth was to give human beings a way to enter eternal life. This occurs when the Spirit of this Intelligence enters and reprograms whoever will personally commit himself to Christ's message and, therefore, to Christ. In so doing Christ becomes their Passport into eternity. Such hope is inaccessible to the animals and is available only to a life form capable of receiving and transmitting absolute truth through generations of its existence. We are this life form.

   Christ testified that he came from a perfect world that existed beyond this one, and established his credibility by bodily returning from the grave. In view of the importance of his message we might think that its rejection would rest on logical inconsistencies or a fraudulent credential. But this is not the case. Honest inquiry has shown Christ's logic to be impeccable, and recent medical testimony has reaffirmed his death.¹ Furthermore, his bodily return from the grave has greater historical warrant than any other known event of the ancient world.² What's surprising is that whereas his credential is as secure as history can make it, we deny him the identity he claimed. Yet despite this we call him a great teacher. But is it sensible to accept teaching from someone whom we believe is self-deluded? And whom do we call great who doesn't know who he is? Yet in Christ's case, it's done all the time.

   What's significant is that he wasn't killed for stealing bread or raping a woman

Page 166

or murdering someone. They killed him because he claimed to be God. Even the judge who condemned Jesus to death publicly stated that he could find nothing wrong with him. But if his message is logically consistent and his credential is historically established, why do most of us reject it? Is the reason for want of proof? Or that we will not have anything seem true that contradicts our passions and affections?

1. Edwards W. et al. On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ JAMA (1986) 255(11):1455 Mar 21.

2. Morison F. Who Moved the Stone? (1971) InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. McDowell J. Evidence That Demands a Verdict (1972) Here's Life Publ., San Bernardino, CA Nichol R. The Resurrection of Yeshua: Did It Really Happen? (1981) Congregation B'nai Maccabim, Chicago and Ruach Israel, Boston (Pamphlet). Anderson J. The Evidence for the Resurrection (1966) InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL (pamphlet); see also full text — Christianity: The Witness of History. Greenleaf S. An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice (1847) rep. 1965 Baker Book House.

Appendix 10.  God's Proof to Mankind

   The message is this: The person Jesus — crucified two thousand years ago — is the Incarnation of God, and, therefore, the Christ foretold as coming in Jewish Scriptures. The words and the deeds of Jesus thus become the words and the deeds of God, and identify Christ as the actual saving presence of God on earth.

   This means that Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man to enter eternal life, and that his second coming for the Christian is the first glorious coming of Messiah for the Jew. The reason he is able to come a second time is that God bodily raised him from the dead. His resurrection is thus his sole identifying credential, and the "proof" God gave mankind to show that all other beliefs and claims are false (see Appendices 7, 8, 9).

Appendix 11.  The Rise of Humanism

   Materialism emerged as a popular description of reality in the wake of the Renaissance. At that time, empirical observation and rational thinking became viewed as the only source of truth. The confusion was amplified by a failure to distinguish biblical truths from church traditions. This was followed by clerical disorientation, ecclesiastical intimidation, and theological capitulation. Disorientation occurred when rationalists forced the church to drink the wine of its traditions. Intimidation happened when technological signs strove with Christ to be an object of faith. Capitulation materialized when secular confusion attacked biblical truths using hidden presuppositions. All of this served to fan the flame of secular humanism — a religion that displaces deity with human reason and holds that progress is inevitable, science is invincible, and evolution is indomitable. It thrives because it teaches that man can decide what is evil without God; it is a doctrine that frees human conscience to indulge in fleshly appetites and that feeds human ego with the lie that man is king.

Table of Contents

Origins and Destiny by Robert Gange is online courtesy of: