Today's post on Raving Atheist (who, from the content of his recent posts, does not seem to be an atheist anymore … at least not the "raving" type) got me thinking about human consciousness. The RA notes that "Certainly I recognize there is a relationship between my consciousness and my brain, that there is perhaps some necessary foundation of matter which must support my every thought. But that I must stand upon a mountaintop to behold the view does not mean that I am the mountain, as lifeless as its rocks and dirt."

J. P. Moreland is a philosopher who has some interesting thoughts on the subject of consciousness, and how it applies to faith:

It will not do to claim that consciousness simply “emerged” from matter when it reached a certain level of complexity because “emergence” is merely a label for (rather than an explanation of) the phenomena being explained. [If] we are made in God’s image, there should be something about us that can’t be adequately explained without postulating God’s existence. And that is the case with mind and consciousness. Their reality supports the falsity of naturalism and the truth of theism.

For how Moreland reaches this conclusion, see his article "Does the Argument From Mind Provide Evidence for God?" Note that this is not a 'God of the gaps' type of argument. Moreland here is arguing that "even if evolutionary theory is someday able to adequately explain the origins of the human brain, it will remain fundamentally unable to explain the existence of the human mind." Worth thinking about.

After tackling evolution yesterday, why not stem cell research today? Something that is usually overlooked in the debate is the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, as explained by Dr. David A. Prentice:

I am in favor of stem cell research. In fact, I don't know anyone who is opposed. If this sounds startling or puzzling, it's because many people don't know that they need to look for an adjective that should always be present in a discussion of stem cell research. Without an adjective defining the source of the stem cells, the term is misleading and spreads confusion.

There are many sources of stem cells, but the two most often discussed are embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells come from early embryos within the first few days of life. Obtaining them requires the breaking apart of the embryo , which necessarily results in death. By contrast, adult stem cells can be found in virtually all tissues of the body from birth onward (as well as in umbilical cord blood and placenta) and harvesting of these cells does not harm the individual from whom they are obtained.

Despite the hype surrounding them, embryonic stem cells actually have little to offer for treatment of disease. Their supposed advantages -unlimited growth and potential for forming all tissues- are hindrances when it comes to transplants to repair damaged tissue. When transplanted into experimental animals, these cells generally continue this untamed behavior, with a tendency to form tumors or various unwanted tissues. (Dr. David A. Prentice, The Real Promise of Stem Cell Research)

It seems as though many people critiquing the US veto aren't aware of this distinction. Adult stem cell research is still legal, kills no one, and is ongoing today. For more on why people reject embryonic stem cell research, see "Are you against stem cell research" (PDF) which asks the question "Wouldn’t you agree it is wrong to kill one human being to do research on her body to help someone else?"

My first and possibly last post on this blog regarding evolution. I basically have two short comments to make.

First, there seem to be some unanswered (unanswerable?) questions regarding evolution. For example: How did the male and female sexes develop through evolutionary processes? I can see how it's possible that most body parts could develop naturally, but here we have (if you'll excuse the crude terminology) two separate interlocking pieces, like a lock and key. I found an article here that explains the problem fairly well, "Evolutionary Theories on Gender and Sexual Reproduction". This is one reason why I think macroevolution is not a tenable theory.

Second, even if macroevolution is true, it cannot disprove God's existence. Some theists accept evolution, and are sometimes referred to as 'progressive creationists'. [EDIT Mar/04/07: I made a careless mistake in my original post. Originally I claimed in this post that Hugh Ross 'accepts evolution'. As the '8 Myths' page on Reasons.org clearly states, he does not. I apologize for this error.]

It seems there are still valid questions regarding evolution (Dissent from Darwin lists over 600 PhD holders from major schools who "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life"), and even if macroevolution is true it doesn't matter much (from a faith perspective). Strobel's recent book Case for a Creator is a good resource on relevant topics, as well as other evidence for God's existence from a scientific point of view.

There are two equal and opposite errors into which [we] can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight. ~ C S Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Preface

I just watched "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" so that got me thinking about demons, and I remembered the quote above. The question is: Why do we often see so little evidence of demons nowadays? Is it because they don't exist and we have outgrown old superstitions? Or is it because demons have become so caricatured by modern culture that their reality and relevance has been lost?

Just for the sake of argument, let's say demons really do exist. Now, say we're trying to think like one of these demons, intent on deceiving humankind. What better way to achieve that goal than to convince people demons don't exist? I mean doing so subtly, gradually. It has been said that this is the greatest trick demons have ever played: convincing people that they don't exist. Consider, assuming again for the sake of argument that demons exist, that I were possessed by a demon today. What would my family likely do, were I do exhibit similar symptoms to Emily Rose in the movie? Likely I would be taken to the hospital, given drugs (which wouldn't work) and eventually be hauled off to the nuthouse. Regardless of the evidence, a medical problem would be the only one considered. The demon's tactics would have worked perfectly, and only due to our society's insistence on pure scientism.

Note: It's important to keep in mind that Christianity is not at all dualistic. God and the devil are not equals. They are not at equal ends of a scale: God is the scale. Christians believe that God "will remove all of their sorrows, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain" when, at the proper time, demons and the devil are defeated. (Rev 21:4, NLT)

Back to the movie, I thought that The Exorcism of Emily Rose was pretty good overall. Although I think I could've presented a better argument than the defense lawyer did in the movie 😀 … and when the priest was on the stand, I wanted to shout "No! Don't let the prosecution lawyer get away with that! Answer him back like this!"