 
The Programming Model Of Creation

How God Can Speak the Worlds into Being

By James Haines

Copyright 2011 James Haines

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this free ebook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords.com to discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support.
  * Table of Contents

  * Chapter 1 - The Old Man

  * Chapter 2 - Just Drivin' Through

  * Chapter 3 - An Overview of The Programming Model

  * Chapter 4 - Energy

  * Chapter 5 - Matter

  * Chapter 6 - Goliath and the Speed of Light

  * Chapter 7 - "Must" vs. "Will" - A Fireside Chat

  * Chapter 8 - The Scientific Method and The Programming Model

  * Chapter 9 – Food for Thought

  * Chapter 10 - Faith versus Works

  * Chapter 11 – Identity Miracles

  * Chapter 12 – The Age of the Earth

  * Chapter 13 – The Fraud of Evolution

  * Chapter 14 – The Word Game of Evolution

  * Chapter 15 - Immanuel

  * Conclusion

  * About the Author

Note: All Scripture references are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted.
" _How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!_

How vast is the sum of them!

Were I to count them,

they would outnumber the grains of sand."

Psalm 139:17-18
Chapter 1 - The Old Man

" _And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."_

Colossians 1:17 King James Bible

" _Two_ minutes?"

"Two minutes!"

No negotiation. Ethan's little eyes darted left, then right, then quickly all around, trying to spot anything unusual. He _hated_ secrets. What were they hiding from him? They wouldn't allow him more than these few, precious seconds to study his surroundings.

Mountains towered on both sides. The highway beside them was just a sliver of ribbon. It struggled for space around a small lake. The notch was really too narrow for both. Time was running out. He tried staring at the other tourists. Would they reveal some hint? But their faces were mute.

The deal was two minutes of blindfold for a mouthful of gummy bears. "OK", he surrendered. He snatched the candy from his sister's hand and shoved it all into his mouth. _"No negotiation!"_ , he thought, smiling. " _Two_ can play at _that_ game!"

His brother and sister carefully fastened the blindfold. Then each grabbed a hand and began to lead him forward. After fifty paces, the gravel was too much for Ethan's badly worn sneakers. "Oush!", came his garbled protest. "My feet hurt!"

"Just a few more steps!"

Ethan tried to get clues using his remaining senses. He noticed a whiff of pine from the forests on the mountainside. He loved the smell, but it mingled strangely with the sour taste in his mouth. He could now just barely hear the sound of children splashing in water some distance away. A beach, he guessed, since he had already seen the lake. He realized they must be nearing the intended spot, because their pace slowed. He could hear people nearby remarking about something they were watching. "Amazing!", one said quietly. "It's so clear!", whispered another. He guessed it must be some sort of animal, since everyone was being so quiet.

His brother turned him slightly to the left, then gently lifted his chin. Apparently the object to be observed was elevated. "Not an animal.", he concluded.

"Are you ready?"

"Go for it!", he replied.

His sister slowly untied the blindfold until it fell off. Ethan squinted and blinked while his eyes adjusted to the light, but he spotted it immediately. "Wow! I see it!", he exclaimed, quickly chewing the remnants of the candy so he could talk more clearly. "I can't believe it! You can't see anything from just over there, but it's clear as a bell over here!"

This was Ethan's first trip to Franconia Notch, New Hampshire. For the first time, he was seeing "The Old Man of the Mountain": that striking profile of a man's face formed by huge blocks of granite, hanging from the top of a mountain. Something like Mt. Rushmore, but carved naturally. The profile could be seen from alongside the highway, but only from one vantage point of just a few yards width. Walk just beyond that point – to either side - and the image quickly disappeared. Ethan was seeing it for the first time...
Now, reader, hold that thought. We're going to shift gears dramatically. We'll call this next one, "Second gear". In this section, you'll no longer be reading a story, but following a set of instructions. Please be sure to follow them slowly and carefully. _Think_ about the answer to each question asked here. You may now begin.

This is a reality check. What do your senses tell you about the real world? First, you're looking at this book. Specifically, you're looking at these words. Now glance for a moment at the surface of the page itself. Does it appear rough or smooth? Run your fingers across it. _Feel_ it. Is it what your eyes suggested? Rough? Or smooth?

Try to judge the weight of the book. Lift it a bit. Gravity pulls one way; your muscles, the other. It's a never ending tug-of-war. Slight, but it's there.

Now, turn the page. Turn it back. Can you hear anything as the page turns? A crinkling sound, perhaps, if its paper? The tapping or sliding of your finger on the screen if it's an eBook?

Does your nose smell any chemical odor from the pages? Perhaps a bit of solvent or ink? Or maybe the smell of plastic if it's an e-book.

Finally, _taste_. OK, don't _lick_ the book - that's disgusting! But if you did...you'd probably sense either no taste, or perhaps a slightly bitter one.

Inventory complete. You have five senses: seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, and tasting. You just used them all: once in your mind, while reading about Ethan at the mountain; once during the reality check. With these five senses, you experience the world. With them, you tell what's real from what's not. Admit it: we usually don't think about _using_ our senses. We just _use_ them.

Now, back to the mountain. Was it nice? Could you smell the pine in your mind? Did you complete the assignment? There was one! Were you able to hold onto the thought of Ethan's mountain, in detail, _while_ you checked your senses in the real world? Or did you, like most of us, put the first thought aside to start the other. Grade yourself and then push on. We still have some distance to go...
Now we'll shift to "Third gear": Computers.

"What's that?", you ask.

Yes, computers. We'll need them for where we're headed. They aren't alive, but they act in some ways like our minds...only better. They hold "thoughts" for a long time. A million years? No problem! Just keep the power on! In fact, they hold _many_ thoughts at the _same_ time ...thousands ...millions ...billions ...all at the same time. So the computer could have held onto the detail of Ethan's mountain _while_ it checked its five senses regarding the book.

Feel inferior? It gets worse. Computers can allow thoughts to interact. Our thoughts of the mountain with our thoughts of the book. All details of all thoughts. Simultaneously. The computer could have tasted Ethan's gummy bears while weighing the book and still have been able to focus on the sound of children splashing - all at the same time! Every thought mixed with every other thought. All sharply in focus. All at the same time! Are you dizzy yet?

So what's the point? Where are we headed with this? Well, computers can model - in some ways - the mechanics of a perfect mind. They can maintain and control a near-infinite number of thoughts - simultaneously - for a near-infinite period of time.

What can you do with such brain power? Run simulations! Years ago, computers ran flight simulators. Today, they run _World of Warcraft_ TM. And each year, the graphics get better and better. The "worlds" they create become more and more vivid...more and more like our own world - or some version thereof.

"But!", you protest, "Our world's _real_. It's _different_ than those. We can _touch_ it and _feel_ it."

This is where it gets spooky. Ever hear of a _haptic_ display? It allows you to _touch_ and _feel_ things in simulated worlds. Yes, it's new. And it allows us to interact with simulations using the sense that we depend on to judge what's real: the sense of touch.

Let's review. We pictured the mountain. We sensed the book. Computers do both at the same time. They let us play God with a really huge mind that holds lots of thoughts that all interact at once. With their brain power, computers can generate simulated worlds. Haptic displays allow us to touch things in those worlds.

Pause. Take a breather. You'll need it. We're shifting to Fourth gear...
Question: Do you really have to have chips and circuit boards to make a computer?

Answer: No! I once had a book that showed how to make a computer out of paper clips! It wouldn't work as fast or be as powerful as your laptop, but it would work. In fact, you could make computers out of lots of things. Anything that can show an "on" and "off" position will do. Electronic relays will do. Toggle switches will do. These were, in fact, used many years ago, but they weren't very fast. Chips are faster, cheaper, and smaller.

If your mind were powerful enough - and clear enough - you could even do what computers do by running thoughts in your head. Here's how:

Instead of holding the thoughts of the mountain and the book in your head, hold thoughts that are a bit more specific. (Yes, that's a pun for computer geeks.) Here's a sample:

Hold these numbers in your head, in this exact pattern:

" 1-0-1-1"

Now, slide the numbers half an inch to the left and add a space on the right:

"1-0-1-1 - "

Now, pick off the first "1" on the left:

"0-1-1 - "

And stick it around on the right side:

"0-1-1-1 "

Congratulations! You're a computer! You just did the type of things computers do. This is called "rotating bits". The bits are the ones and zeroes. We shifted them sideways and wrapped the first bit around to the other end. Wasn't it exciting! Alright, so the mountain was more fun.

Anyway, you get the basic idea. Computers store ones and zeroes. They shift them around and do other things like that. Multiply the number of numbers by trillions and do it all in millionths of a second and you can use such powers to create worlds.

Time to shift again. Fifth and final gear...
We've spent a few paragraphs telling you how superior computers are to your mind. Now, we're going to turn the tables: Suppose you had a mind that could number-crunch just like a computer, but _better_ than our best computer. You'd have a pretty big mind, that's for sure, but just suppose you could...

Remember, computers just juggle ones and zeroes, so that's what you'd be doing in your great big mind. Computers run simulations, so you could, too. They allow people to interact with each other in the same simulation, regardless of where they are in the real world. So could you. They generate distant lands, oceans, air, daytime, nighttime, planets, stars, unending space. So could you. Though computers lack some detail now, they gain more with each passing year. We'll imagine you're already at the point where you can handle as much detail as we have in our own universe. That's a stretch with present technology. But that's also the direction in which this technology is headed. And it's accelerating there at an exponential rate!

Now shift perspective. Instead of _running_ the universe simulation in your big, giant head, suppose you _exist somewhere_ _within_ the simulation. Computers can mimic all five senses now, so all of your senses would be firing in the simulation. Would you be able to tell that it was a simulation and not reality? Or would the simulation _be_ reality – at least the reality given to you for the present time? How would you judge what was really real? By the sense of touch? Remember what we said about haptic displays!

So, what would be the "real you", then? Would it be the simulated body in the simulated world? Or would you be something else that is merely attached to the simulated body in the simulated world? Would you really be alive? What would your life be, anyway?

This sounds like a concept that's going to leave the Bible far behind, but it's not. In fact, I'll argue that this perspective is more in line with what God has been trying to tell us about Creation all along, than what we were usually willing to believe. Creation by words: this is it. We're doing it now. We've developed a technology that allows us to model this Creation better than anything else we've used before. And the parallels are striking.

Lots of questions. Lots of answers. There are so many similarities between the worlds we create in software and the one in which we live, that it's time to make a good thorough comparison of the two. You may find this concept unnerving at first. I did. But your view of life afterward may, surprisingly, be richer and more secure. That claim will require some explanation to support. So let's begin by taking a drive...
Chapter 2 - Just Drivin' Through

"Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists."

Hebrews 11:1 International Standard Version

Role play. You're sixteen. You just got your license. The car's a beauty! You climb in, carefully back out of the driveway, and slowly, responsibly, accelerate down the road. Past your parents' earshot, you floor it. The power! The freedom! You lower the window. The wind confirms your speed. Everything smells so good. Essence of Spring. You and the car are one. You steer. It answers. Grace in motion. You gently brake. The car bows to a stop.

How does your car work? At sixteen, you couldn't care less. You're too busy enjoying the drive. Your reflexes are perfect. You can make the car do anything you want.

How does your car work? Gas. Oil. Tires. Engine. Lots of parts. Runs on gas.

How does your car work?

Really.

Stop. Think about it. You know that somewhere in the past, someone had to design the thing. Probably lots of engineers, architects, and so forth. You know it has lots of parts. You know that the parts work together. Some of the settings are very precise.

Cars are really very sophisticated, wonderfully designed machines. The fact that they're so easy and comfortable to drive is testimony to good engineering; their beauty, to good architecture. You could easily go your entire life without knowing exactly how they work. Most of us do!

The same is true of both your body and the world it inhabits. Most people use their senses easily and gracefully. Playing the piano. Dancing. Even football. Like driving the car, most people enjoy experiencing this world without ever knowing how it really works. So let's change our perspective. Let's stop the car. Let's get out. Let's look under the hood. Let's see how this thing we call _reality_ really works.

We "lift the hood" of our reality by examining the major blocks from which it is built: atoms. Of all the amazing discoveries made about atoms, perhaps the most astounding was the one made by Ernest Rutherford, about 1909. _What this man discovered completely changed how we view reality._ His work not only earned him the title, "The Father of Nuclear Physics", it also forced Christians to reconsider _how_ God created our universe.

It was 1909. Rutherford's coworkers were preparing some tests on the latest theory of atomic structure. The latest theory was based on the "plum pudding" model. This model basically said that atoms have matter dispersed throughout their insides like a pudding.

Now, there was no way the workers could _see_ inside the atoms...at least, not directly. Things were too small in there! So they did the next best thing. They went bowling! They figured they'd shoot little bowling balls through the atoms and see how the bowling balls bounced off of things inside there. They wouldn't be able to see the "pins" - the positive charges inside the atoms. These were far too tiny to see. However, they might be able to tell what it was like inside by how much the bowling balls were deflected as they hit the pins.

For their target, they used thin gold foil. This would give them atoms with lots of pins to hit. For their bowling balls, they used alpha particles. They had equipment that would let them see how the alpha particles bounced as they hit pins inside the atoms of gold.

So the team aimed a beam of alpha particles at the foil. They expected most of the particles to pass through the foil undeflected, just as you'd expect the bowling ball to pass mostly between the pins, if there were only two or three pins left and if they were spread far apart. They also expected a few of the particles to be deflected just a little, just as you'd expect to see the bowling ball to be deflected _a little,_ if it hit a pin or two. That's what they _thought_ would happen.

They started the experiment. Everything seemed OK at first. Most of the beam passed straight through without hitting anything. Maybe the pins were just hard to hit. But suddenly, some of the particles shot _backward!_ It was as though the hidden bowling pins were throwing the bowling balls _back at them!_ Rutherford, himself, later described the strange results as follows: "This is almost as incredible as if you fired a fifteen inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came right back and hit you!"

Rutherford thought about what the results were telling them. He realized that the model they had been using for reality was _wrong!_ Instead of atoms being solid, they must be hollow! It was as if hundreds of bowling pins had been compressed into one, tiny _super-pin!_ So most of the time, the bowling ball would miss it entirely, but once it a while, it would hit the superpin head-on and bounce backward off of it! We call that superpin the _nucleus_ of the atom. (You can view a  simulation of the experiment on the web.)

_It is difficult to convey how very much our concept of reality was changed by the discovery that atoms are hollow._ Until that time, people presumed matter was solid. That only made sense: Things must be solid, because they _looked and felt_ solid! _Our senses were telling us things were solid!_ So although we then believed and still believe that God called the worlds into being, we thought we understood fully what that meant: that things were solid, through and through.

Now all that changed. Was God deceiving us because things weren't as solid as they appeared? Of course not! It just meant that _we_ had misunderstood how our reality was constructed. We had been judging our reality by our senses. That was a mistake! Matter throughout the universe is now understood to be hollow. Yet, today we still tend to judge reality by our senses. We think things are solid, because they look and feel solid! Yet after knowing for about a century that atoms are hollow, _we have lost the shock of how that news changed our understanding of reality!_

So what would we be seeing, _if we saw things as they really are_ , based on how much matter they actually contain? Rutherford gave a great analogy to help us picture it. He said that the actual amount of matter in an atom is like "the fly in the cathedral". Try to imagine that. Would you be able to spot one lone fly if you walked into a cathedral, given no hints, no buzzing, and if it didn't move?

Here's another analogy. Have you ever seen a  rain gauge? The water in the gauge starts as tiny cloud droplets, which collect, commonly, around a tiny piece of dust. The size of the dust in each droplet is often just one percent of the size of the droplet. So about ninety-nine percent of each droplet is clear. Yet in the average atom, the amount of space that is empty or "clear" is about 99.9999999999999%1! So the average atom should be far more clear to you than rain water! If you can't see the tiniest dust in rain water, how could you possibly see the infinitely smaller amount of matter in an atom.

A full-size glass picture-window might be a good example of the clarity one would think we should see in atoms. But the way light passes through the glass, though it seems simple, involves some hefty quantum mechanics. However, if you took a small, felt tip marker and put the tiniest dot somewhere on the window, you'd get something of the view of the actual mass present in the entire panel of glass. The rigid window would illustrate the strength of the structure generated and the tiny dot would illustrate the size of the mass generating it!

So if you saw an atom for the mass that was actually present, you'd see something clearer than the clearest water, or the clearest glass! What that means, practically speaking, is that you wouldn't see anything! That's if you actually saw the empty space. You don't. What you do see is a representation generated for your benefit. Again, if you saw this reality based on the matter that was truly here, the world would be invisible and your eyes would be useless! You'd stumble around, bumping into things, because everything would be invisible.

Atoms. Clearer than rain water. Empty as a cathedral with one lonely fly. What we see is not what's there. What we see is an image based on what's there. We need to be reminded of this when we consider the reality we inhabit. Our eyes do deceive us, but for our own good! We tend to think of things as solid - through and through - even though they're not. When you sit on a park bench, you think the bench is able to hold you up because the wood appears solid to your eyes. That appearance is generated. The real bench is, mass-wise, invisible.

Given such little mass, how do atoms keep their shape? How does the fly single-handedly support the structure of the cathedral? The same way city people keep their backyards: by force! God help anyone who challenges a property line, whether the neighbor be human or atom! Think of an atom as a row home with a backyard the size of the whole city, but that guards the space as stubbornly as if it were the size of a welcome mat.

So when you sit on the park bench, the atoms refuse to budge. None of them want to give up any portion of the space they occupy, so they don't! The atoms of _bench_ are unyielding, fortunately, when you rest your atoms of _rump_ upon them. They may shift position a bit, and this is shown by any flexing the bench does. But give up any of their property? Not a chance! Super-flies supporting Cathedrals! Each almost entirely empty!

And yet the park bench _appears_ solid. So what are we seeing, if not the empty space? We usually think that when we see the bench, we're seeing light that bounces off the solid object and into our eyes. Yes, light does strike the atoms of the bench and later light does strike our eyes. In school, they usually just teach that the light bounces off the bench and strikes your eyes.

The reality is much more complex. In fact, it's not the same light coming out as going in. Rather than rebounding from the bench, the light actually interacts with the electrons orbiting the atoms of the bench and produces a negotiated result. It is the result, rather than the original, which we see. But we rarely consider these things. Most of the time, we're too busy using the system to consider how it works. Like driving the car.

So there you have it. Our reality is almost completely empty of matter. If we saw it for what it really was, everything would be invisible. And what you thought you were seeing when you looked at the park bench was actually what light and atoms decided to show you.

If you consider that you simply drive through this reality, enjoying your five senses as you enjoyed steering the car, that may help explain our dilemma. We operate in the natural world. We see things as solid, though they're really not. We sit on things, because they look solid enough, even though they really have nowhere near the density our eyes suggest. Our senses make it so easy for us! Just like driving the car, we really don't have to know how this reality works to be able to enjoy it.

But if all you ever do is joyride through life, you'll miss out on the best part of all. The whole point of this experience is to get to know the Creator better. Understanding the evidence of His work all around us is part of that. Understanding The Programming Model may help you see that evidence more clearly. So let's take a closer look at the model itself...

1The volume of an atom (roughly 1 angstrom, or 10^-10 m in diameter) is about 15 orders of magnitude larger than the volume of a nucleon (roughly 1 fm, or 10^-15 m in diameter). It seems rather silly to express that ratio in percentage, but it would be 99.9999999999999% (13 nines after the decimal point).
Chapter 3 - An Overview of The Programming Model

"...upholding all things by the word of his power..."

Hebrews 1:3 King James Version

A note on the structure of the next few chapters...

This chapter sets the foundation for a discussion of The Programming Model. It answers a few basic questions, lays the legal basis for it, and then details the tools and key terms we will use while discussing it. _How_ the model addresses subjects such as Energy, Matter, and the Scientific Method, will be introduced here, but then dealt with in more detail in separate chapters which follow. Each of those topics rightfully deserves its own focus. Some may wish to jump to that detail immediately, but we ask that you bear with us here, until we finish laying the foundation and present the framework's basic definitions.

So what, exactly, is "The Programming Model"?

The full name is "The Programming Model of Creation". It models the _mechanics_ of how God could have created all things: energy, matter, atoms, air, land, sea, outer space, our universe, the supernatural, heaven, principalities, powers... pretty much "the whole shebang"!

Did God create all things this way?

Maybe. Maybe not. It is not _testable_ , in the sense that it cannot be _proven_ either true or false. That is why we call it, "The Programming _Model_ of Creation"; not, "The Programming _Theory_ of Creation". However, it _may well_ have been the way God created all things. _We believe that the model fits so well, that the difference between what we would experience in a universe made in this way and the universe that we actually inhabit would be indiscernible to us._

Why should we use this model?

Most ideas that propose _how_ God created the universe begin with the basic entities, such as light, energy, and matter, already created. The creation of the basic entities themselves ("out of nothing" as the Hebrew word "bara" in Genesis 1:1 indicates) is left as a matter of faith: that God _can_ do it, even if we have no idea how. This remains a good, solid foundation and will always be true: that God is able to do more than we know; that His limitless resources and abilities are accepted by us through our trust of His Word, through faith which He gives us (Ephesians 2:8-10).

However, the last half-century has offered us a new window into the realm of "creating things out of nothing" (Ex Nihilo), by using _thoughts_ expressed as _command words_. So _this_ model runs to the opposite extreme. Rather than _avoiding_ the questions of "how matter and energy were created", this model _embraces_ them. It starts its proposals for "how God created" at the earliest point: from the existence of God alone. It then proposes how God _could_ have created all things, even the basic entities, simply by using _words_.

There is obviously very strong support for this perspective from Scripture. The most natural reading of the Creation account, as presented on the very first page of the Bible, describes God making things in this way. The verses of Genesis 1, which describe this, include the following:

Verse 3: "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

Verse 11: "Then God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so."

Verses 14-15: "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so."

Verse 24: "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so. "

Not only do _these_ verses describe Creation in this manner, others elsewhere even _amplify_ the meaning. Romans 4:17 (ESV) specifies that God did _not_ start with previously existing materials, when it states, "...God ...who gives life to the dead and _calls into existence the things that do not exist."_ And as if Genesis 1 weren't specific enough, Psalm 33:6 (NIV) focuses directly on the _mechanism_ by which God creates: " _By_ _the word of the Lord_ were the heavens made, their starry host _by the breath of his mouth_." Verse 9 of the same psalm reads, " _For he spoke_ , and it came to be; _he commanded_ , and it stood firm." It is difficult to read into these verses _anything other_ than a deliberate attempt to convey that God was creating things simply by speaking them into existence.

Some commentaries point out allusions to the rest of the Trinity in these verses. Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as "The Word". The word for "breath" used in this verse is rendered elsewhere as "Spirit". So these commentaries note that verse 6 may therefore imply that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all working together in harmony to create all things. This is good. But the most _natural_ reading of the verse leads one to conclude that God _made_ the heavens by _speaking them into existence. The mechanics of how this can be done will be explained through this model._

Hebrews 11:3 (NLT) contains a similar comment on Creation: "By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, _that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen._ " As a side note, this verse directly rebuts the view of naturalism. Naturalism believes that matter has always existed. This verse says it _hasn't_ always existed.

But the verse goes further. It says that what we see now was _built_ from things that can't be seen. Hollow atoms _almost_ qualify, for they are mostly empty. But we can see even them, given the proper tools. The Programming Model presents an explanation for how things, including atoms, can be created from nothing more than thoughts, which are communicated to others as words.

What are the benefits of using the model?

This model offers an explanation of _how_ God can create things by words. As part of the reasoning behind that goal, it also reveals _how_ He can be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. The explanation demonstrates that God always has, at His disposal, _all power_ for dealing with events. By satisfying the "how", we are drawn to focus more on the "why". "Why does He choose to _limit_ His power, when He doesn't _have_ to?"

So this model will _also_ help us understand better _why_ God may have acted in certain ways. For example, this model offers, in a later chapter, a simple explanation of _why_ Jesus spit into the dust to heal a man's eyes. It also explains _how_ He healed the man's eyes this way. We believe the healing method, viewed from the perspective of this model, is both reasonable and God-glorifying.

Is this a cult?

No. It's just a model. God is still God and the Bible is still the Bible. Salvation is obtained only through personal faith in Jesus the Messiah as Savior, who paid the full price for our redemption ( _tetelestai_ , "Paid in Full"). The Bible is still the ultimate written reference we have on Truth. If the model acts to contradict the Bible, than the model is wrong and the Bible is true.

In the example just mentioned (using mud to heal eyes), you are invited to consider how well the model explains what's going on in that interaction. If the meaning of the passage becomes more obvious and God-glorifying to you by viewing it through the model, then it has done its job. If not, don't use it. It's like using glasses: if they help you to see things more clearly, use them. If not, don't!

Can we get any special powers by using this model?

No. Sorry! This model's only good for giving us a better perspective on viewing concepts of creation described in the Bible. If you want special powers, you'll have to ask God. But this model may help you see _why_ you can only do such things through Him.

Can we get our prayers answered any better by using this model?

No. Sorry! You still have to go to Jesus for answers to prayers. The model will, probably, give you a clearer understanding of why you have to go through Him and how thoroughly He understands your needs before you even ask Him.

Before we begin...

First, a disclaimer. It's important to remember that although God _could have_ actually used these methods to create all things, He may have used other methods. We're using this one because _we_ can create things this way. However, the worlds we create this way are puny compared to God's. But puny is better than nothing, so puny will do.

We now begin the foundation...

The Legal Basis for The Programming Model

We start with the three attributes of God which are held as part of classic Christian creed: Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience. Omnipotence means God is almighty and all-powerful – able to do anything (except sin!). Omnipresence means He is able to be present everywhere and with everyone at the same time. Omniscience means He knows everything; that His mind is infinite.

Next, we're going to set aside the first two attributes as "not needed". You'll see why in a moment. We're going to focus on just the third, Omniscience, and take only one subset from that one. Thus, The Programming Model will be constructed from a mere portion of just one of the three attributes of God which are a traditional part of classic Christian belief.

From the third attribute, Omniscience, we're going to focus on one characteristic: infinite memory (Figure 3-1). We're going to say, "Give us infinite memory with which to build all Creation and we'll give you all the rest: Heavens, Earth, powers, principalities, angels, people, galaxies and kitty-cats. We'll even throw in Omnipotence and Omnipresence for free!"

Figure 3-1. The Model is Based on Infinite Memory, a Subset of Omniscience.

How is Creation built, using The Programming Model?

We're going to construct Creation by words, just as described in the verses cited earlier. How we'll get from words to things you can stand on, touch, and walk around, we'll get to momentarily.

The words we use will be adhered to _absolutely, precisely and permanently_ until changed. This is _very different_ from normal language that we use in day to day conversations. It goes far beyond simply being "adamant". _The words will be followed mechanically; that is, in a machine-like manner._

The words will represent concepts. _We call words used in this way, "software"._ We use computers to run software. But that's only because our minds are not sufficiently vast enough and clear enough to do it by themselves. Our minds were designed with these specific limitations. So we use computers as an artificial, mechanical enhancement for our minds as we would use a telescope to enhance our vision.

God's mind is infinite. So it already _is_ vast enough and clear enough to operate better than the best computer. _So He could run concepts in His mind as we run concepts on computers._ He could dedicate a mere portion of His mind to run the concepts that maintain the reality we experience. _Our model uses the "infinite memory" portion of God's omniscience to construct Creation as software: as commands – thoughts firmly held and executed as strictly as our machines execute them._

When we imitate His Creation in our own software, we call it a "simulation". _That is because ours is a lesser imitation of His._ But God _is_ the ultimate reality. And whatever He decides to define for us becomes _our_ reality. All of the abilities we possess, as well as the limitations we have, are defined and maintained fully and completely by Him. This world that we currently experience _is_ the reality He has given to us for the present time.

We design simulations with multiple worlds and differing levels of authority. Couldn't God do at least as much as _we_ do?

Why do you call it "The _Programming_ Model" and not "The _Software_ Model"?

Simple. "Software" is only a noun. "Programming" is both a noun and a _verb_. "Software" implies passivity. "Programming" implies activity. Not only did God _author_ our Creation; he also _upholds_ it moment by moment. So we need a noun _and_ a verb to express both concepts.

How are Omnipotence and Omnipresence achieved?

Omnipotence and Omnipresence do not need to be added in separately to our model, because running Creation as software means that these other two attributes will already be included! Here's why...

Omnipotence is automatically present in the model, because software is _thought-based_. The one who authors the thoughts may construct them in any way desired and may change them at any time, or even erase them all in an instant, to begin again. These actions are so common during everyday development of computer programs that we programmers rarely even think about them. Yet they model perfectly powers that reflect omnipotence.

Should God desire to destroy everything in an instant and replace it with something else, He could, because that would simply mean clearing memory and authoring something new. We do this on our own machines by performing a reset. Turn off the machine. Turn it back on. Memory cleared. Problem solved! God has never done this, nor intends to ever do so, but that is by His personal choice. Yet that absolute power always remains at His disposal.

The _reason_ that He continues on with the Human Story, instead of erasing it and starting over, is that the _whole point_ of His activity in Creation and history is _us_. _We always were and still remain the focus of His attention._ The idea that there is life on other planets _ignores_ His focus on us. The _reason_ Earth _does_ stand alone as bearing life within this vast universe is _because we and our redemption and relationship with Him ARE the whole point of Creation._ If there is a limit to the size of the universe, that limit could be multiplied one thousand times over and our world would _still_ be the only little speck of planet with life on it. _That's how very deliberate He is about this plan._ This is _not_ to imply that we are that special on our own, but that _He_ is that special in making certain both our creation and our redemption. So this experience of continuing history helps us to _know Who He is and what He is like_. _We and our relationship with Him are the focus of His activity._

The fact that instead of a "reset" He has used _lesser_ judgments, such as Noah's Flood, therefore means that He has certain purposes in implementing them beyond the simple act of elimination. Instant erasure is simple elimination. A year-long Flood generates a vast fossil record. And just as those who refused to get on the Ark certainly must have claimed that their science proved a Flood impossible - for none of them even _tried_ to get on the Ark beforehand - so scoffers since then have claimed that the fossil record, which is the Flood's greatest and most obvious testimony, is no proof of the Flood at all! It is the serpent's argument to Eve all over again.

Often, little comment is added by God as to _why_ He acts in certain ways. And yet, how few times have people even asked Him for comment. Yet, as we shall see by looking at a few examples later on, He is consistent in providing clues to His reasons for those who are willing to search. Proverbs 25:2 says, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Walking on water was one such act that we will examine more closely in a later section. The model will answer the "how" of the miracle, so that we may focus more on the "why".

So Omnipotence follows automatically the act of creating a reality through software. Omnipresence, meanwhile, is modeled by a particular way of _structuring_ memory. In our model, we will use a structure of computer memory called "RAM". "RAM" stands for "Random Access Memory". In RAM, we can get to _any_ point in memory in an instant. Flash drives are a good example of this. RAM stands in contrast to "sequential access memory", where, as with old VHS video tapes, you'd have to wind all the way through the tape to get from one end of memory to the other.

These two methods of modeling memory are what _we_ use with computers. When speed of access is _un_ important, we can use sequential access. When speed of access _is_ important, we use random access. _Because true thoughts require no physical material as a basis for their existence, they may be structured entirely as RAM._ So an infinite memory running thoughts as software in a style that we model by RAM would have instant access to any part of Creation at all times. Thus, Omnipresence. What makes all of this more fascinating is that since time itself is a Creation, it is not a limiting factor in speed of access!

So Omnipotence and Omnipresence follow automatically for a Creation implemented by software. Note as we proceed with this discussion, however, that it would be presumptuous to claim that software is the _only_ means God has for maintaining Omnipotence and Omnipresence, for He is God! However, these two traits do follow automatically for a Creation designed as software. They don't have to be included on our shopping list, because they are already built-in side-effects.

Doesn't this perspective make God _part_ of His Creation?

No. God is transcendent over His Creation. As a programmer, I am _not_ the software I write. If I were able to run the software in my mind, I would still not _be_ the software I write. The software might reflect my nature and character, if I choose to write it that way. Similarly, God can choose to design His Creation to show evidence of Himself or not. He has chosen to do this, as Romans 1 clearly explains.

Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of evangelist Billy Graham, has explained the relationship of God to His Creation well in her daily devotional:

"God Himself is not in a sunset or in an act of human compassion any more than an artist is in his painting or a musician is in his music. You and I may see reflections of the artist's or musician's personality in his work, but the person himself is separate from it. Likewise, you may see the reflection of God's personality in a sunset or in an act of compassion, but He Himself is not in either one. He is separate from His Creation."

How must the "software" be written?

There are _no restraints_ on how software can be written. Software is based on _whatever_ rules you write, so if you want to create atoms that are hollow instead of solid, you can. You can write rules that make sense or rules that are nonsense. You can write rules that are stable or rules that change daily. You can write rules that are simple or rules that are not. You write all of the rules for how things interact: all of the rules for energy and all of the rules for matter. In fact, it's your decision whether or not to base humans' reality on a space-mass-time continuum at all!

You write all of the rules for how _many_ senses people will have and how these senses will work. You define both the _capabilities_ of all things and, perhaps more importantly, the _limits_ to capabilities of all things. You also define the levels of effort required to overcome obstacles, including physical, mental, and emotional effort. You define how _slow_ people's minds will work as well as how fast. In Exodus 4:11, God says to Moses, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

How can mere thoughts affect us in reality?

Here's an explanation for the younger set. Have you played any of the video wargames recently? When bullets "hit you" in such games, the controllers commonly vibrate against your hand. Simple, but effective! You "feel" the impact of the bullets. You can run away from enemy fire and avoid the bullets or run into it and get clobbered.

Now think about what goes on in these interactions. _All of the "reality" of the game is being managed within the computer – within the box – within the model of a mind._ The results are being sent, as appropriate, to the vibrator inside the controller. If you want to make such a system more realistic, you could build a more advanced controller, or perhaps a helmet with wrap-around video and audio inside, or, theoretically, even hook the system directly to your nerves. The Cochlear Ear Implant already provides this ability for use by the hearing-impaired. The Argus II provides similar capability for video. Since the nerves simply transmit the messages to your brain, if you knew how to connect directly to your brain, you could do that, too.

God says your body is a Temple for the Holy Spirit. Guess what? It's a temple for you, too, as per the definition in Genesis One. That means that you _could_ take a final step from the brain to your spirit – _if_ you knew how and _if_ God allowed. Fortunately, God reserves that power for Himself. I can only imagine the trouble we might get into if we weren't stopped at that point!

Are there any indications in Scripture that God uses the software approach?

Yes. In Luke 12:7 Jesus states, "Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered." This is exactly the type of description we would expect from a Creation based on software. In our own simulations, we number all objects down to the smallest level. However, because our computers are more limited for space than God's mind, we are forced to run with less detail than He uses for His Creation. Still, we decide on a level of detail which is manageable for us and number all objects down to that level.

With the authority of the programmer, we can examine the status of each object, whenever we want, and make any edits or changes to them we like! Those _within_ the reality our software creates would consider such changes miracles, because they could not make such changes themselves unless we allowed. But making changes to software as programmers and authors – even if the software generates a reality - is quite easy.

How do we relate _reality_ to the software written for it?

For our model, it's easy! We'll use a software editor. Programmers have a more technical term for it. They call it an "Integrated Development Environment", but we'll keep tech-talk to a minimum and simply call it a software editor.

Basically, a software editor's like a word-processor for developing and testing software. But instead of having just one screen, as with a word-processor, software editors have two screens. One screen contains rules written by the programmer. The rules are known as "program code" or "software". The other screen displays the results generated _by_ the rules. We'll call this the "results side". For God's Creation, this screen would give us a view into our "real world".

To keep things simple, we'll portray the editor for The Programming Model with screens side by side, like this (Figure 3-2):

Figure 3-2. The "Editor" for The Programming Model of Creation.

So in our editor, we'd see our rules appear on the left screen and the _results_ appear on the right screen. Keep in mind, of course, that we're using two simple screens to illustrate something that is actually much more complex. For example, when you use a word-processor, the document you see on the screen is an image generated solely for your benefit (Figure 3-3). Remember that we said the same thing about how we saw the park bench in the chapter "Just Drivin' Through"? We don't see the true mass of objects. We see images of them generated for our benefit.

Figure 3-3. Screens Display Images for Our Benefit,

But the Document Exists in the Computer – in the Model of a Mind.

(Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

If you were to turn off the screen of your word-processor, for example, the word-processor itself wouldn't be affected. But just try to type a meaningful document with the screen turned off! If you could memorize all of the keystrokes needed to type your document, you _could_ type it into the word-processor with the monitor turned off. And if you didn't make any typing mistakes along the way, you'd be able to print your finished document without ever using the monitor screen! "Bravo!", if you're _that_ good!

The point is that the word-processor runs internally – in the box; in the model of a mind that we call a computer. _It_ doesn't need the screen to exist. _It_ doesn't even need the keyboard. _You_ need the screen so you can see what's going on as you type. _You_ need the keyboard so you can tell the word-processor what to do. But the word-processor can exist happily all by itself, inside the box; inside the model of a mind.

In their truest form, the word-processor and document are simply _thoughts_ modeled in the physical world by the physical model of a mind: the computer! _All physical objects, like our park bench of the previous chapter, exist in such a software-based world just as this document exists: as firmly held thoughts in the Greatest Mind._

So our discussion of The Programming Model will involve two screens: a rules screen and a results screen, for _our_ benefit, so that _we_ can see what's going on. Just as with the word-processor, though, the program running reality can exist happily _without_ screens or keyboards and _even without the box of the computer_. It exists in the Mind that is better than any computer. So that we can follow along, however, we'll describe it as running on two screens that we can see: the Rules Screen and the Reality Screen (Figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4. The Two Screens of the Programming Model:

Rules and Reality.

As of the date of this writing, there is an impressive video of this concept on the web. The left side of the screen in that video displays an actual program running. The right side, meanwhile, contains two sequential scenes of reality. Although the program displayed is simpler than that required for most simulations, it illustrates how programs _appear_ when they are running. The _speed_ of the program has been greatly reduced to allow you to follow the program's work. Programmers actually use slow-motion techniques like this to perform maintenance and repair on real programs.

The _reality side_ of the video displays two scenes in sequence. The first scene shows a radio controlled model airplane taking off. The second scene shows a brief drama of Isaac Newton under the apple tree. Interestingly, the scene of the airplane _is_ a computer simulation, though it appears quite realistic. The scene of Isaac Newton, meanwhile, uses a real actor. The video provides a good demonstration of the concept of our "software editor" used for The Programming Model.

As this video illustrates, when we use software editors to create computer programs, we actually _see both sides as needed_ : the rules side and the results side. Note that for the discussion of The Programming Model, we will sometimes use the phrase "results side" and other times, the phrase "reality side". "Results side" is the more general term for _any_ piece of software, be it an accounting package, a Nasa application, or anything else written as a computer program. The Programming Model considers our reality as the "results side" of God's software running Creation. So for the purpose of considering the model, it seems more appropriate to refer to the "results side" as the "reality side". However, from time to time, we may use the term "results side" if we're referring to software in general or of we want to remind the reader that the reality we inhabit is modeled as the "results side" of God's software.

How we perceive reality.

For the present time within our reality, we see _only_ the results side. This is where we interact. This is where we can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste things. We can't see the rules side, but this model illustrates how it exists and how it relates to our reality. God does describe some of the rules from time to time. But other than a few hints, we're left to discern the rules only from within our position on the results side.

Discerning some of the rules God has written.

Now, there _is_ a way to discern _some_ of the rules written on the "rules side" even when you only have access to the "results side". The trick is to use the Scientific Method! Isaac Newton used this method to discern the Law of Gravity and the basic Laws of Motion. As long as the Author does not change the rules on the rules side, and as long as the rules on that side are not unfathomably complex or chaotic, they can be discerned by repeated testing from the results side – that is, from within our reality.

For example, Newton discerned the _rule_ for gravity by repeatedly dropping objects from the _reality side_ and noting the consistent patterns to the objects' behavior as they fell. _In industry, we call this technique, "Reverse Engineering", which implies an original design! We will discuss more about this in the chapter, "The Scientific Method"._

The Scientific Method has allowed us to build the vast base of knowledge which we use in our modern world. The base of knowledge has, in turn, allowed us to develop marvelous and powerful technology as well. From the effort endured and the knowledge shared and acted upon, we now live like kings and queens compared to times past! How many people had hot and cold running water to use whenever they liked just two hundred years ago? How many people of that time could travel hundreds or thousands of miles _in a day_ as we are able to do? A prophecy in Daniel 12:4 predicted both the increase in travel (rush hour) and the vast increase in knowledge!

How the rules we discover testify to God.

The fact that the rules on the rules side of our world are orderly and sized so that we can discern and understand them is testimony to us of the existence and wisdom of our Creator. But the world as a whole, tends to scoff at such ideas. It always has! "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. " (Romans 1:20)

How permanent is Creation?

We get distracted into thinking our reality is more permanent than it is. We do this by allowing our senses to rule us. Things _appear_ to be solid and permanent and they _feel_ solid and permanent, so we presume that they are. But the Bible says that God has created all things by His word, that He sustains them by His word, and that He will replace them with something newer and better in an instant, by His new word, when He deems the time is right. So how "real" and permanent is this reality, really? Isn't it up to God to decide how long it lasts and whether or not to change the rules, as appropriate? Flexibility of design such as this is a normal characteristic of software!

Is God within time as we are?

Software editors allow programmers to test software in slow-motion, to watch specific objects as they change, or to pause or interrupt the results side to check or change values and rules. It is, actually, like operating outside of the time domain of the reality side, because while pausing the rules side to make changes, the reality side stops and is unaware of the time used by the programmer. When the programmer resumes execution, which could be anywhere from a minute, to an hour, or even days later, the reality side continues from where it left off – as though no time had passed at all! Any edits or changes made by the programmer appear in the reality side as though they were made instantaneously! We, as programmers, do this routinely. If we can do this, can God do less?

Restating The Basics

Computers model minds. There is no particular way computers _have_ to be built to run like a mind. AppleTM makes Macs™; IBMTM makes PCsTM. Both work. Some people program in JavaTM; some in C## TM. Both work. Memory can be implemented as magnetic diskettes or flash drives. Both work. Our computers use binary. God's mind uses ______??? (He _could_ use binary if He wanted to, but I'm guessing He's got something better.)

Here is a list of recent worlds we've created:

World of Warcraft

Halo

Medal of Honor

Grand Theft Auto

Lord of The Rings

Here is a list of recent worlds God's created:

Ours

Comparisons

God's world certainly has more detail than ours do. It has _many_ more laws governing the ways things interact. It has more critters! But the mechanics of _how_ people and objects interact in our simulated worlds matches how they _could_ interact in God's world. The only thing we can't do is attach living spirits to the simulated bodies, which is probably just as well. So we use our _own_ spirits, within the bodies God gave _us,_ to run our simulated bodies in our simulated worlds.

We mostly experience our simulated worlds through just two senses: audio and video. God's world gives us five senses: hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. We _can_ simulate these last three senses for our simulated worlds. Haptic displays, for example, simulate the sense of touch. However, at this time, the interfaces for smell, taste, and touch are new and expensive. Given time, their cost will probably drop and their availability will probably increase. If, or when, that happens, then our worlds will also "fire" the senses of hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. (Put your wallet back. They're not ready yet!)

Are senses beyond the five that we have possible?

Absolutely! We can define anything we want within our programs. "With God all things are possible." Within _our_ programs, all things are possible by us, too – though on a very small level, compared to God's. God gave us five senses to use for now. We mimic them. He _could_ give us fifty-thousand later! That's entirely up to Him.

Would we ever be able to change the software on God's level?

Absolutely not. This holds true as well for any of our own software which is written to be virus-proof. (Obviously not all of our popular software is currently written that way!) One of the simplest examples of virus-proof software is ROM-based software. ROM stands for "Read-Only Memory". In the late 1970's, the original TRS-80TM Model 1 computer used a ROM-based language, for example. The primary language for that machine was instant-on and unchangeable.

How can we model infinite Space?

Go to your computer. Sit down in front of it. Crank up any of the simulations listed previously. Watch the screen as you run around in the simulation from place to place. Explore different streets, different towns, different cities, nations, and planets! Fly through the air over oceans and lands. Travel through outer space and watch the stars go past.

Now look down at your computer. It's a box. The world you're traveling through exists in a box. The box contains a model of a mind. The _mind_ is running the world you see. If _your_ mind were big enough and clear enough, you could run it in your mind, too. But it isn't, so you can't. You use the box instead. It works and it's cheap.

Can we create living things within our worlds?

No.

Will we ever be able to create living things within our worlds?

No.

What about Artificial Intelligence?

Sorry. It's not alive and it never has been. It just mimics living things. Remember FurbiesTM? That's pretty much it. Artificial Intelligence can be a magnificent, powerfully productive tool. But living? Not so much!

How can God create real, living people if we can't?

Well, actually, the Bible tells us. The first chapter of Genesis explains that God built the body for Adam and _then_ "breathed life into him" (Genesis 2:7). So the body was a physical container for the spirit. In computer terminology, we would call the body an _interface_. The body was constructed from _matter_ , which shall be the focus of a later chapter.

In the Greek, Septuagint version, the word used for "breath" is pneuma, which also means "spirit". So this verse means, as far as we can follow the brief description, that God put a portion of His own life into Adam. Some people might try to stretch this so far as to say, "Aha! So there is the "god" already within each of us!". But it's more accurate to say, based on qualifications later in Scripture, that although God did indeed share _life_ with us – which, along with redemption, is the primary gift from Him to us – He did it in such as way as to make it independent from Himself, at least as far as decisions were concerned.

So what's a _spirit?_ Is it like a ghost?

There don't appear to be any particular properties or characteristics of a spirit that you could use to describe one, as you would normally do for physical things within the physical world. Try, for example, to describe the true form of a _thought!_ Breath, or formlessness, is probably a good starting point, because it at least describes that the spirit has no predefined form.

You might be surprised to hear that we actually handle _similar_ entities quite easily! _Thoughts_ have no form, no matter, use no energy, and have no locality. But we design _bodies_ for them! In the computer industry, we call these bodies, "bits". A "bit", as previously discussed, simply represents the _thought_ of either the value _one_ or the value _zero_. _Larger_ thoughts are built from collections of these smallest of thoughts.

We build bodies to hold these _smallest of thoughts_ from tiny slivers of iron, from transistors, from chips, disks, or tape! And so we give these thoughts, which have no form or location of their own, _bodies_ within our world through which they can interact. We can even, somewhat "miraculously", _transport_ _these thoughts out of the realm of matter altogether_ by converting them to energy and passing them great distances almost instantly through wires, radio waves, or beams of light. We then reconnect them to bodies at the other end of their journey. This happens on an enormous scale, for example, whenever you simply view web pages on the internet! Each web page is passed from its source to your computer as a great many individual bits!

The fact that we cannot transport such things _outside_ of the matter-energy world we know is simply due to the limitations imposed upon us. If God were to author a definition for a new property, such as "gizmo", _and grant us access to it_ , we could probably find a way to use that property to transport thoughts as well. Just because _we_ don't have access to all levels of creation doesn't mean definitions for other levels don't _exist_.

All of the "infinite space" we just talked about in our previous example is built from vast collections of thoughts embodied as bits. But these _thoughts_ of infinite space, by themselves, wouldn't do us much good if we didn't have a _monitor_ on which to watch them or a _keyboard_ from which to surf them. If we didn't have the monitor or keyboard, the infinite space would still be running inside the box – the mind - of the computer, but we wouldn't be able to see it or interact with it. In computer jargon, we call the monitor and keyboard "input/output devices". You type on the keyboard and it sends text _into_ the computer. The computer sends infinite space _out_ to your monitor, where you can watch it. Thus, keyboard=input; monitor = output.

So you might think of our bodies as input/output devices through which we can experience life. Without _some_ sort of body as an interface, our spirits would be like the computer box all by itself: running glorious, infinite space, without being able to show it to anyone. So our bodies, both present and future, provide us with input/output capabilities. Our five senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling serve as our currently defined _input_ devices. Talking, singing, dancing, smiles, frowns, and even burps and farts are examples of a few of our current _output_ devices. With them we can provide input to others around us. (Please refrain from the last two types.)

By current definition - by God's definition \- our spirits are attached to these bodies until these bodies die or are changed. Until that time, we sense and experience things within the limits and boundaries He has defined for them.

God is Spirit. Man is also spirit. Life is something we can never generate; only God can. Life is an attribute unique to God. Life exists and God can make more of it. That's probably why He designed the _bodies_ for living things to grow, so that they would model what He can do with life. God can make other, independent life from His own. That's how He made Adam. He can also define the rules for _life to generate more life_ , which is how he defined the rule for Adam and then for Adam and Eve and all other parents from that point forward.

He _could_ make more life independent of the Adam and Eve lineage. Matthew 3:9 says,

"And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." But, although God _could_ make such life, He chooses to continue it only through us. His choice. (Besides, there would probably be a great many ramifications to creating new people independent of Adam and Eve's line. Questions such as, "Since the line being created is untainted by Adam's sin, would they not need salvation?" However, I'm quite confident that God would have a good answer for such questions. He always does!)

Now that we've laid the foundation for the model, let's take a closer look at how it can create matter and energy!
Chapter 4 - Energy

So he said to me, "... 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty."

Zechariah 4:6 New International Version

National Geographic has an excellent,  one-minute video, which shows lava approaching an abandoned truck. You realize, as you watch, that the lava's going to destroy the truck. That's because you know that lava's very hot: that it contains substantial heat energy. When it hits the truck, it will transfer some of this heat energy to the truck, which will probably burst into flames. The impending impact makes the scene exciting. It's like waiting for fireworks. (A  similar video, only about a minute in length, also makes a good preview for this discussion.)

So the truck in the first video, from it's perspective, experiences intense heat energy and must also suffer all of its resulting effects. Yet, consider the perspective _you_ have when you watch this take place on a video screen. _You_ don't feel the lava's heat. It doesn't apply to _you_. We could run the lava/truck scene as a software simulation and the conclusion should be even more obvious. In the simulation, the truck would experience the heat. _But how much energy is required to run the_ _simulation_? If it's run in a non-material mind: none!

This is a key concept for The Programming Model. We create software simulations which involve energy transfers. _But the energy transfers take place entirely within the simulations!_ The energy transfers _exist because of the rules we write for them within the software_. We can make the energy transfers large or small. We can adjust simulated gravity to be like a moon-bounce, or like deep-sea diving. The realities we create obediently follow whatever rules we write. The realities we write are _thought-based_. Although we use computers to process the thoughts for our simulations, the computers simply mimic what a powerful mind could do.

_Our_ computers _do_ require some power to operate. But the energy required to power them is in no way connected to the energy transfers taking place within the simulated realities. And in God's mind, thoughts being thoughts with no computer required, no power is required to run the mind. So the energy transfers taking place in our created universe would require no energy input from God's mind. The energy transfers would proceed according to whatever rules He invokes, _just as ours do within the worlds we create!_ The energy transfers could be enormous or tiny, purely based on His decision. _In a software-based Creation, energy is entirely definitional: that is, its existence, form, power and interactions are definition-based._

Again, because the model is _thought-based_ and because thoughts require no energy or matter to exist, the model requires no energy to operate. It can operate endlessly and use no energy. And yet, the Creation _within_ the model could both supply and require fantastic sums of energy from its inhabitants.

The energy provided by our Sun, for example, is enormous. But it is only enormous from _our_ perspective _within_ the Creation. The Mind running the Creation would require no energy to run. The Mind running the Creation would not need to "submit" energy to the Sun to make _it_ run. This is exactly how we operate simulated suns within our simulated realities. We do not have to submit any energy to make the simulated suns run. We simply call them into existence and define rules for _how_ they run. So on an ultimate level, our reality would require no energy to maintain, but would be based fully and completely in God's commands: God's thoughts firmly held.

Here is a brief homework assignment which should illustrate the point in an entertaining and thought-provoking way:

Remember the National Geographic scene of the lava approaching the truck? Watch the simulation again. This time, as the lava gets closer to the truck – somewhere in the middle of the video – turn _just your monitor_ off for a few seconds. While your monitor is off, ask yourself, "Does the lava still exist? Is it still hot? Is it still approaching the truck?"

The answer is, "Of course it exists! You just can't see it with the monitor off!" (You can turn the monitor back on now to verify the results.) This simple, yet important point, illustrates what we've just discussed. The monitor simply presents an additional window on the action, solely for your benefit. If the lava/truck scene is generated as a simulation, the monitor has nothing to do with the reality inside the simulation. The monitor is simply a viewport, for your convenience, from which you can view the action.

In fact, simulation software must take extra steps to prepare images for display on a monitor, _beyond_ all of the steps required to create and maintain the reality inside. If we could somehow tell the simulation software not to bother generating the display for the monitor, it would actually end up doing _less work_ to perform the simulation. Just as in our previous example of the reality generated by the word processor, the reality of the lava simulation can exist happily (or fearfully), all by itself, inside the computer – inside the box - which is the physical model of a mind.

...So how about matter???...
Chapter 5 - Matter

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Isaiah 55:9 New International version

Matter, like energy, is thought-based in The Programming Model. There is a natural tendency to cringe at this statement, as it is usually interpreted to mean that our reality would be "less real" than we think. Such is not the case, as we will explain momentarily. Another equally valid way to say it is that matter is based in God's _commands,_ which are then held firmly as thoughts.

In fact, in computer programming, this is _exactly_ what we call it: issuing commands, which are then carried out in memory. We issue declarations to bring objects into existence and then issue commands to define their properties and rules for interaction. We sustain their existence by holding firmly onto both the thoughts that define them and the thoughts that maintain a full description of their current state. In addition, if we want to or need to, we can also maintain a complete running history of all events that have happened to all objects and characters within our creations, again, simply by issuing commands to record this information. All of these powers are accomplished by the general task of "holding onto thoughts". That is why we discussed the importance of _holding onto thoughts_ in the first chapter.

This concept may seem strange to non-programmers, but it does indeed work. You can see the results for yourself by looking at any of the simulated realities programmers create. Keep in mind, however, that when you view these things on a typical monitor screen, you are watching a cheaper two-dimensional representation of the world inside, which often fails to do it justice. As long as the reality being generated inside is defined _three_ -dimensionally, it could be better represented through holographic and haptic displays (both of which are still in the works) and these would present the creation to your _senses_ in ways that you could more fully appreciate. With such displays, you would be able to touch and feel objects in the reality and see their true, three-dimensional forms, even to the point of being able to walk around them!

The "inhabitants" of these realities do indeed encounter objects that they can touch, stand on, walk around, lift, throw, drop, or carry. Were we to add haptic and holographic displays, _we_ could touch, stand on, walk around, lift, throw, drop, or carry these thought-based objects, too! Our senses would be telling _us_ that the objects are fully real. So is it best to judge reality by what our senses tell us?

These objects _do_ qualify as simplistic matter, even though no detail, such as internal structure or relative density may have been defined for them. For the purposes of current video games, just the location and outer shape of objects are usually all that are needed, so that we can determine events such as collisions and face-to-face meetings between characters. Further detail, such as internal structure and relative density could be added, simply by adding more (much more) design information.

**Why do we consider that the matter within our created realities, being thought-based, is unlike our own?** _For if those inside our realities were to judge things the way we do, they would be judging matter's existence by their senses and by their matter-examining machines!_ _But their senses and machines would simply respond according to the rules authored for their reality, as do ours!_

Of course, _we_ have a better perspective than they do, for we view their reality from outside of it, usually via a simple monitor screen. We know that their matter is constructed by words, commands, and thoughts for we have created it that way. We can look at the thought-modeling machine – the computer – which may be next to our viewing screen and understand that _that_ is where their reality is being sustained and controlled. Isn't this what God has been trying to tell us about our own world?

If our minds could hold and manipulate thoughts the way our machines do, we could run their reality within our minds. The permanence and stability of their creation would depend entirely on our faithfulness, as their creator, to sustain it. Sound familiar? Colossians 1:16-17 says, "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, _and in him all things hold together._ " So which is the more accurate view? ...That our reality is self-sustaining, or that it requires His constant sustenance?

If we were to tell inhabitants of our created realities that we had "called their world into existence simply by commands", they'd probably laugh! At first, they would have no evidence of that outside of our testimony. If we were to create an avatar to represent ourselves to them inside their reality in a way that they could see, feel, and hear, we could at least discuss the issue with them face to face. Would they believe us, then? Perhaps not! But if they could design machines within their own reality with which to _model_ their reality, at least then they could get a sample of how to create worlds through thoughts as we do with our machines. _This is the situation in which we now find ourselves! We are now able to create worlds the way God describes creating ours in Genesis One!_

The problem of defining the _source_ for our reality is not solved by our use of matter-examining machines, any more than that approach would solve the same problem for those within the realities _we_ create. Particle accelerators are magnificent machines. They do indeed extend our understanding of the rules for matter far beyond what we could achieve using our own, limited senses. But in employing them, we are simply testing things from the _results side_ , while often denying the authorship of the _rules side_.

When we do discern a previously undiscovered rule for matter, we applaud the effort and congratulate ourselves. And often such discoveries do allow us to manipulate matter in new and fruitful ways. All of this is good. But ignoring the Author of the rules side, as though He doesn't exist, is a mistake. Most of the founding fathers of modern science understood this situation and one described our search for knowledge as, "Thinking God's thoughts after Him". This was simply an acknowledgment of our Creator and of His rules side. It was a way of saying, "Thank you!" to Him for the opportunity given. To avoid this acknowledgment is simply arrogance.

So we call matter into being in our simulated realities by a simple declaration of its existence. The _amount_ of matter we call into being is, theoretically, unrestricted. We can declare a few, smaller objects to create a small town, or numerous, magnificent objects sufficient to fill a universe. The practical limits we _do_ tend to encounter for our creations are simply due to limitations on the amount of memory available to us with which to maintain object detail and the cleverness of our algorithms with which to manage the rules for activity of all objects. Usually our simulations dispense with the maintenance of detail beneath the level of simple objects, such as tools, books, or, more commonly, weapons. We don't, for example, currently allow examination of virtual cars down to the level of individual nuts and bolts. But the level of detail _could be_ _extended indefinitely_ , given sufficient computing power and design.

If we choose to show more detail of individual objects in our creations, we simply need more memory and more design information. Proceeding down to the atomic and subatomic levels of detail is a relatively straightforward process, at least in the strategy necessary to accomplish it, although the amounts of memory and of design information needed to accomplish such things are still far beyond anything of which we are capable today. Our worlds may be puny compared to God's, but we can mimic pretty much anything we've seen to date, though on a smaller scale.

If this concept sounds scary, I'll point out that nothing we accomplish in our simulated realities in any way threatens God's authority over our own reality. That is the nature of software: _the authority to create is always less than that of the reality within which the work is performed._ That is why Pharoah's sorcerers' snakes could not consume Moses' snake. God demonstrated in that interaction that _He_ had superior authority.

This "declaring into existence" is the description given to us in the Bible of how God created matter. It is ironic that so many have considered this portion of the Bible naive and primitive, when, in reality, _we are just now beginning to reach this same point technologically_. This is precisely the way _we_ create matter inside our lesser realities with our thought-modeling machines. We generate simulated realities that contain as much or as little matter as we desire.

_Just as with energy, we do not need to "pass" matter through to our simulated realities to make it exist there._ This, as with the same comment made previously about energy, is another key point of The Programming Model. We do not need to pass matter or energy into the realities we create. We simply need to declare the existence of matter and energy and then define their quantities and the rules for their properties and interaction. God would do the same for our reality.

In a software-based Creation, energy and matter are entirely definitional: that is, their existence, form, power and interactions are definition-based. The proof that such a reality works is that our own simulations now fire our senses similar to the way this reality does. And our senses are what we have been using to judge what is real.

If we judge matter only by our senses and without the Bible, we tend to conclude that matter is eternal. The Bible tells us of matter's true origin and destiny. If we trust the Bible, then matter did not exist eternally and exists only temporarily until God creates all things anew. If we don't trust the Bible, then the permanence of matter is presumed.

But therein lies a major problem. The source of the problem is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternally old, which is a requirement of "permanent matter", then the universe should be lukewarm, for that is the direction in which it is relentlessly heading. This is its destiny regardless of how many "big bangs" are proposed. The fact that it is _not_ lukewarm implies a _super_ natural beginning. Again, God has left sufficient evidence that this universe could not have created itself. So matter is _not_ eternally existent and must have had a beginning.

We _could_ create worlds in which the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply. So could God. There is no ultimate rule _requiring_ us to create anything in any particular way. The design of software is completely at the whim of the author. So the Second Law was deliberately placed. Romans 1 contains the reason: so that men are without excuse, because the Creation itself testifies to God. The Second Law is part of this powerful testimony. To ignore the evidence provided by this Law is to deliberately ignore some of the greatest testimony of Science.

Another reason we tend to think of matter as permanent is because that has been the message proclaimed loudly and steadily by those _opposed_ to the Biblical view. It is important for Christians to understand that such claims often involve unprovable assumptions, such as the Doctrine of Uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism was, by definition, an attempt to destroy the Biblical view. It had an anti-Biblical bias built in. It did not seek to search for truth, wherever that might lead, but instead deliberately denied both the Biblical Creation and Flood outright and sought to explain geology _by any means necessary to avoid these two, specific acts_.

Such views as Uniformitarianism are commonly defended by claiming that opponents of the views are "ignorant, self-deluded flat-earthers" or something of the kind. Such attacks are not only _not_ true, but are merely ad hominem arguments as was the serpent's argument to Eve. I suspect that most geologists do not know or understand the true origins of the presumptions that underlie modern, uniformitarian geology. I can say this with some assurance, as I, myself, have been through the curriculum!

If we could attach living souls to inhabitants of our creations (which we cannot), they might well wonder as we do whether or not their worlds were permanent. If we did not insert any evidence such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics into our creations, there would be no way the inhabitants could tell for sure. But if we did leave such evidence, they could be held accountable for acknowledging it upon discovering it.

As to the details of matter's design within our own creations...

We can choose to make atoms that are hollow or atoms that are solid. We can choose to make atoms the smallest particles or to make them the door to _worlds_ of particles. Since we make all the rules, nothing is restricted to us. The inhabitants of our simulated realities could not create or destroy matter unless we would allow it. They could examine the details of matter as much as we would allow. The fact that our own reality has near-infinite levels of detail is testimony to both the greatness of our God and His goodness toward us. It follows His invitation to "subdue the earth", given in Genesis One. Part of this directive requires us to _explore_ all things, to examine them, and to understand them. What better way to understand the mind and reasoning of our Creator than to examine His work? Level upon level of detail allows us to follow His thinking more fully. It is like receiving mountains of blueprints, rather than a simple warranty slip.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.". This Law stands, but only _within_ our reality, for it is one of the rules _for_ our reality. It stands because God makes it stand. It will change when He decides. Revelation 21 describes the change at that time. _We_ could create a similar Law within our _own_ simulated realities and it would stand as long as we desired.

Matter has all the permanence God grants it, but none beyond that. If it is thought-based, as this model proposes, it is no deception, for that is exactly how God describes creating it. "He commanded and it stood fast" and "He calls the worlds into being" are both statements that have become part of our creeds. These actions are fully in line with The Programming Model, for _that is how_ _we create matter in our lesser worlds_. Reality is whatever God decides it shall be, not what we, from our limited perspective on the results side, claim it to be.
Chapter 6 \- Goliath and the Speed of Light

"...A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. He was over nine feet tall. He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. His spear shaft was like a weaver's rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer went ahead of him.

...Then the Philistine said, 'This day I defy the ranks of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other.' On hearing the Philistine's words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified. ..

...David said to the Philistine, 'You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel..."

1 Samuel 17:4-45

OK, what do the Speed of Light and Goliath have in common? Well, actually, much more than most people think! And the solution to both was shown by David, the shepherd boy!

The Speed of Light is constant, or so we've been told. Distances to stars are known, or so we've been told. Therefore, the universe must be billions of years old, for it would take light traveling those distances billions of years to reach us, or so we've been told.

Goliath was huge, or so he appeared. His weapons were huge, or so they appeared. His power was great, or so it appeared.

David knew better. Goliath took advantage of the properties God had lent him. His argument was that no one could overcome _his_ amount of matter with _their_ amount of matter. He took evil advantage of the _results_ side, while fully discounting the _rules_ side. We call that _sin_. David took full advantage of the _rules_ side, while fully discounting the _results_ side. We call that _faith_.

David won. Goliath lost. Don't piss off God!

So is God deceiving us by saying the universe is young, when we "know" it is old?

The answer is simple:

We don't know that it's old!

The case for an old earth would be stronger if we had documents dating back millions of years, rather than just a few thousand years. We don't. _Strangely, everything peters out a few thousand years ago._

If the _Bible_ had claimed the universe had existed forever, that claim could be shot down by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which we've discussed before. (Strangely, Evolution refuses to be dismissed by that easy rebuttal!) If the _Bible_ had claimed the Earth was millions or billions of years old, we'd say, "Where's the evidence? Records only go back a few thousand years!" But since the Bible indicates the world _is_ only a few thousand years old – which is in line with historical records – it appears accurate, and so must be attacked by other means!

The presentation of the fossil record to justify millions and billions of years is weak for a similar reason: it is based on the Doctrine of Uniformitarianism, which was not some breakthrough in science, but rather a simple, _deliberate_ _denial_ of the Creation and the Flood. (We will discuss uniformitarianism in detail in its own chapter later.) The fossil record _is_ the remnants of the Flood, regardless of how many, "professing themselves wise..." (Romans 1:22, KJV), claim it is not.

So how about starlight? This is the Goliath argument: all appearance and questionable substance. The presumptions involved in estimating dates from starlight are enormous. They lie far outside of the Experimental Method, for they far exceed our ability to _directly_ measure. Does light from a star take one billion years to reach earth? Well then, _go_ to the star and back to see! You must repeat the trip many times before you can claim the Scientific Method supports it. Even if you were able to make such a trip repeatedly, you still couldn't be sure that's the way conditions were in the past. (This doesn't even include the Einsteinian relative time aspects, either. These bring a whole host of additional possibilities, but these also need "time" for testing, even though they work out well enough on paper.)

There is presently also an argument that the Speed of Light is _decreasing._ The argument states that it has been decreasing _exponentially_. There is some evidence to support this proposal. What it all means is that while light's speed may now be very close to a lower, constant value, its value may have been infinite just a few thousand years ago. Perhaps it was. Then the time for starlight to reach earth would be... no time! It would _not_ have taken billions of years for starlight to reach earth and so the starlight argument would fall just like Goliath. Claiming that light's speed has been always constant is a presumption.

This is just one of the possibilities. There are other, Einsteinian models which model _relative time_ that accommodate a young universe in other ways. I have no idea whether or not any of them are correct. However, it should be understood that as a programmer, as an author of thoughts, you aren't bound by the rules as are the inhabitants of your created realities. You can draw lines of light from stars to earth as though you were using Microsoft PaintTM. We, as inhabitants, cannot. You can set the speed of light to be constant, to decrease, to increase, to wobble, or to be relative, however you wish. It's yours, to do with as you please.

So all that we know is that light appears to be stable, at a constant or near-constant speed, for now. To say God can't change this without lying to us is absurd. It would be different if He had stated, "I have never and will never change the speed of light!". But He hasn't said that. He did swear another oath. Hebrews 7:20 says, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever." But I don't see one that says, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: Light's speed shall be constant forever."

On the contrary, Mark 13:24-25 states, "But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken." If we follow the logic that says the universe is old, because God can't change the speed of light, then we should also say that this prophecy cannot be fulfilled for billions of years, for we "know" that the sun will maintain its light for that length of time. How absurd it is to look only at the results side and claim that there is no rules side from which God can make changes! Or, similarly, to say that Nature's Laws are greater than God, so that whatever He writes must stay within their jurisdiction. He _wrote_ Nature. He writes _all_ of the rules. Remember Goliath!
Chapter 7 - "Must" vs. "Will" - A Fireside Chat

"They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven..."

Hebrews 8:5 New International Version

Note: Although this essay may simply be read in book form, it is best appreciated in forms that can run media players alongside the text. If you are reading this essay on something such as a PC, which can also run Youtube videos, we suggest opening the following Youtube site in a separate window and placing that window next to the one that has the text of this essay, so that both may be seen at the same time. The Youtube site – at least at the date of this writing - is simply an  HD video of a crackling fireplace, well done, that is referred to in the essay. If that site's out of date, any similar one will do. Enjoy!

Now for the essay...

We're sitting by a fireplace...

The logs are burning with a charming glow,

And the embers twinkle as they pile below.

Dancing flames hypnotic are,

And now and then smoke fills the arrr.

Thus ends my career as poet...

If you know something of chemistry, you realize that the carbon from the wood is reacting with the oxygen in the air to produce carbon-dioxide. Energy is released as these two elements combine and this energy generates the heat of the fire. The flames are caused by an incandescence of heated carbon atoms as they rise up from the logs below. Charming, isn't it?

The reaction takes place because it _must_. This is nature's way. These are the laws of chemistry. Or are they?

The difference between the view of _naturalism_ (the view that the natural world is all there is) and The Programming Model (that God defines and maintains the rules for nature) is the perspective on _why_ these reactions occur. It is a question of which word better describes the driving force behind them: "must" or "will".

The word "must" best describes the view of _naturalism_. This is the view we are commonly taught in chemistry class. It says that carbon and oxygen will always exist and always combine, because that's just the way things are. "Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed", the First Law of Thermodynamics, rules absolutely. Where God and His abilities fit into this view is a bit uncertain. Some people place Him _within_ the Natural Laws, so that He can't do anything which violates them. Others have Him wind up the universe, start it off, then walk away and watch from the sidelines. Those who view the world through naturalism are likely to be a bit shocked should God ever intervene _super_ naturally. He _has_ done this a number of times before, as during the contest on Mt. Carmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal. He is due to act again in the battle with Gog of Magog, perhaps to occur shortly.

The word "will" better describes the perspective offered by The Programming Model. In this view, carbon atoms combine with oxygen atoms for two reasons:

  1. God has created definitions for these elements within the reality defined for us.

  2. _His rules that currently govern their interaction dictate that this will happen_.

Chemists recognize that the characteristics of the two elements make for a perfect match. In this second view, however, this match exists _because God is actively maintaining the rules that make it so_. It is no accident that the Periodic Chart of the Elements is arranged like a sophisticated set of LegosTM: each element varying solely by the number of protons, each isotope varying by the number of neutrons, the ability to combine with other elements determined by the number and state of electrons, and so forth.

God sized the _challenge level_ of the properties of the elements _specifically for us_ so that we could discern them. Such alignment between challenge level and students' abilities is recognized by modern education as good teaching practice. This means that God's directive to us in Genesis One to "fill the earth _and subdue it_ ", part of which means to _master_ and fully understand it, was well planned and deliberate; not whimsical. This _is_ evidence for design. The Genesis statement would have made no sense if there were either _no detail_ to explore, or if the detail lay _too far beyond_ our abilities to discern. As it is, the challenge level is set perfectly for us.

So what happens, exactly, when we watch the fireplace burn from the perspective of The Programming Model? Here's an overview:

(Those who are not programmers, please be patient while reading through this next section. It is a bit dry. A stiff cup of coffee might help!)

All objects in this universe and also in all of the supernatural realms, down to the smallest, sub-atomic particle are represented by definitions – thoughts - in God's memory. The current position of each is also maintained, as are all the current attributes representing each object's state. Groups representing sub-atomic objects may be treated together as larger entities which represent individual atoms. One group may represent an atom of carbon; two may represent atoms of oxygen. The status of all objects is updated during a pass through the list of rules for _activity_ of all objects, which pass is performed cyclically within the tiniest unit of time. (We use "machine cycles" of millionths of seconds to do such things on computers. God's processing speed may be infinite, since _time_ is part of His creation for our reality.) During this smallest unit of time, reviews of all rules similar to the following are processed:

(We highlight the words "IF" and "THEN" in the following section, because these happen to be actual words used in some of our high level programming languages.)

  1. IF two oxygen atoms have met the prerequisites to be properly attached to each other according to the rules required for an oxygen molecule THEN they are redefined as a larger object: an oxygen molecule. The status of all individual components within them is updated to reflect this change in state.

  2. IF a carbon atom has passed sufficiently close to an oxygen molecule AND all other necessary prerequisites have been met for these two to combine THEN the status of these objects and all of their component objects is updated to reflect the _status and activity of combination_ and the entity will be treated as a new molecule: carbon dioxide. The appropriate units of heat will be calculated according to rules defined, and these units will begin to be applied to entities representing all other objects with positions surrounding this location to indicate heat dissipating according to predefined rules. This heat transfer will be noted in stages through subsequent passes. IF a generation of light is due, THEN it too will be noted. The effect of the light on all objects will be accounted for, in a manner similar to heat, during subsequent passes.

  3. All objects will have the status of their properties adjusted to reflect the affects of the heat, of the light, and of the physical interaction with all other objects and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

The definitions representing the bodies of "you" and "me" will have their statuses updated accordingly as well. For example, definitions that represent nerve cells within these bodies will have their statuses updated, during a sequence of passes, to reflect the transmission of sensations from the conceptual outside world, through all conceptual entities representing cells of our bodies, and ultimately to those representing our brains. (Updates such as this would be done in stages during multiple passes through the rules list, but are summarized here to give more of a sweep of the activity.)

The conceptual entities representing cells of the brain, including all of their components – down to the smallest sub-atomic level, will have _their_ statuses updated, similarly, to reflect the changes that have been experienced. At the final interface between the group of conceptual objects in memory which represent the physical body and the actual, living spirit, the status of experiences encountered by the body will be passed through to the spirit and the spirit will experience all of the sensations and feelings the body experiences, to degrees and levels determined by God.

These are a sampling of the activities that typically take place in thought-based worlds we design, known as software. This is how they might be applied to a similar thought-based world run in God's memory for you and me. There are many ways to construct such representations, just as there are many ways to write any single computer application. If you doubt the ability of such mundane formulas as these to produce anything "realistic", think again. The video of the fireplace, if you loaded it next to this essay as described when we began, should be showing dancing flames and playing audio of a crackling fireplace. Is the simulation realistic? Well, _it_ is the result of digesting just such binary-based entities by algorithms such as those described here. We call this creation a "Media Player".

There actually do exist good parallels within our own technology of how the final transmission of experiences to our spirits is performed. These are actually rather simple. We have discussed something of this previously.

In video games, game controllers sometimes vibrate to indicate to players that something is happening to them inside the game. For example, in the shoot-em-up games, the controller may vibrate to let you know you're being hit by opponents' fire. Even though they're "special effects" on the cheap, they do demonstrate an important point. The "fire" you encounter in such games occurs within the thought-based reality of the video game. As programmers, we have a number of ways to pass the fact that you're being hit by fire on to you. We could print a report for you, titled, "You're being HIT!!", but reading the results wouldn't be terribly exciting. We could show you something on the screen, such as splatters (I'll try to be polite here), and this would give you something you could _see_. We could have some audio of "thuds" and this would give you something you could _hear_. But the most fun would seem to come from a controller vibrating in your hand, so that you can actually _feel_ the hits.

Notice that each of these possibilities is accomplishing the same thing: they are passing information from the thought-based reality (the video game) out to you within _your_ reality in a way that makes sense to you. This concept is called an _interface_. An interface bridges the gap between two conceptually different worlds. This is how we let you share the experiences taking place inside the video world. The important point is that we're transferring something between two worlds: the virtual world of the video game (which is _thought-based_ , though represented in matter via computer chips) and the real world in which you reside. Although _we_ can't pass such things on to other levels of reality beyond our own, we _do_ demonstrate by this how to pass things from a sub-reality out to our own realty. And if our own reality is thought-based, experiences could be similarly passed out to your spirit in God's greater reality. In a sense, the _real_ world is God's Spirit and the thought-based world is our current reality which stands by His commands; by His definitions declared.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a "Spirit realm" is weak or impotent. Are you sitting down at the moment? Good. Then let me ask you a question. Do you trust God's Word? Not sure? I'd say you do, because you're sitting on it! The chair holding you up is made of matter that was made six thousand years ago _by words_ spoken by God! Six thousand years! So how long can _you_ hold onto thoughts? You're sitting on His Word!

How ironic it is that people say that they don't trust God's Word, or that they don't believe in God at all, when all the time they are standing on His Word, breathing His Word, drinking it, eating it, scratching it, and so on and so on. Whether you think you trust God's Word or not, you're trusting it every time you walk down the sidewalk and believe it will exist from moment to moment. His Word and His constructs are trustworthy!

I trust this sampler impresses you with the detail with which God maintains activity in the universe. When He said, "The very hairs on your head are numbered.", He wasn't kidding! This is how he knows everything that happens everywhere at every moment of time.

In The Programming Model, God maintains the system which supports all activity at all times. The system is based in memory which is on loan to us for the present. Obviously, there is nothing permanent that may be held onto by us, or taken out of the system by us, except for _traits that represent the modifications to our spirit._ We know these as the Fruits of the Spirit of Galatians 5:22-23, which says, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.". This is why it is foolish to try to store up treasures for ourselves on earth, for they will have no existence after God dissolves this current reality. This is also why He encourages us to develop the Fruits of the Spirit, for these things truly _will_ have lasting effect, since they modify the character of our spirit, which is eternal.

Take a moment to enjoy the fireside. We thought it would make a nice, cozy example of the Energy and Matter chapters. Remember as you watch it that while it operates from a thought-based construct of our _own_ – the media player, your computer which runs it and the chair on which you're sitting may both be thought-based constructs of _God's_. Have you thanked Him yet for all of the effort He makes to share these experiences with you? Did you ever thank Him for coming up with the idea of burning logs, and for being able to enjoy their warmth, the crackling sound, and the scents? He gives us plenty of gifts, like the fireside, that we can enjoy. That's just the kind of Person He is! Why don't you take a few minutes and talk to Him right now? Have your own fireside chat with Jesus!

After a few minutes of reflection with Him, you might want to try this as well:  Chris Tomlin's version of "How Great is Our God". If you download the song and play it in the background, then restart the fireside video, you'll get a nice setting for meditating on the concepts we've discussed. Get cozy and enjoy it!
Chapter 8 - The Scientific Method and The Programming Model

"...fill the earth and subdue it..."

Genesis 1:28 New International Version

The verse above represents the command God gave us upon our creation. Note that there are _two_ parts to _subduing_ and _ruling over_ something. The first part is, of course, physical. But there is also a second part: _mental_. Even a brute can subdue something physically. _But we were created in the image of God, to have a relationship with Him._ So I think He had more in mind for our relationship than simply daily arm-wrestling!

So to truly dominate something, you must also _fully understand_ it. If you do _not_ understand it, you do not have _mental_ domination over it. So the _mental_ part of the command to us would have required us to "reverse engineer" God's design: to study it until we fully understood it.

He _could_ have simply created us with this knowledge already built in, as He did with the angels. But He didn't. He gave it to us as our first homework assignment. Unfortunately, we chose something else. If we _had done the assignment_ , we might have better understood the nature and character of the One who created us, by better understanding His Creation. Fortunately, we can still carry out the assignment - at least in part. To do that, we use the Scientific Method.

There is a fascinating relationship between the Scientific Method and the Programming Model. If we had access to the rules side for our reality, we could _see_ the reasons _why_ things happen the way they do. We could watch the instructions on the rules side as we simultaneously view the actions they generate on the results side. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we don't have access to the rules side. We have access only to the results side. That's like having only the results screen of a software editor working.

However, there is a trick we can use to discover how the code is written on the rules side, even though we can't see the code itself. The trick is to perform an action on the results side repeatedly. For example, we drop a ball. Then we drop it again. And again. And again. Then we drop other types of balls. Then we drop them from different heights. Then we drop them on different surfaces. Then we drop them at different temperatures. And so on and so on.

By performing one action in many different ways, we can gradually discern the formulas _needed_ on the rules side to generate the results we're seeing. One formula might be f=ma, for example. Another might be g=32 ft/sec/sec. Surprise: this is the Scientific Method! By observing repeated actions on the results side, we can determine the formulas needed to generate them on the rules side. This method works only as long as the Author doesn't intervene and change formulas on the rules side. In other words, as long as God doesn't change the rules!

In industry – including the software industry - this same method goes by the name of, "Reverse Engineering". If the blueprint (in the case of products), or the source code (in the case of software) is not available, the design can often be deduced by repeated, controlled testing of the end product. Wikipedia has a definition for this process that is appropriate to read at this point.

It is worthwhile to point out that the whole basis for "reverse" engineering is the understanding that _engineering and design took place originally!_ Why, when studying God's Creation, do we call it, "the Scientific Method", and yet, when studying things people have made, we call it, "Reverse Engineering"? _It's the same technique in both cases!_

Again, the technique only works so long as the Author does not change the rules. Note that rules _changes_ within software are _extraordinarily easy_ for programmers to make and can have incredibly vast consequences on the results side. In a nutshell, programmers are omnipotent over their programs: fully, completely, and matter-of-factly. It actually takes a programmer great patience not to intervene in a running program when things aren't going as desired. So from the perspective of a programmer, you can see God's great _patience_ in letting us screw up the results side for six-thousand years!

Now there is an interesting special case that should be noted here. This "special case" regards _exceptions_ to rules. Video gamers commonly know these as "cheat codes": hidden codes within software that grant players access, typically, to "special powers" while playing video games. Of course, these codes are _intentionally designed into the software by the programmers,_ to make such games more interesting to play.

But that is not the only reason such exceptions are sometimes coded. Another common reason is to prove _authorship_. For example, if John Doe wants to prove that he wrote the program "Smash-It-All", he can tuck some extra, subtle, code into his program under a trigger that only he knows. So when Bob Smith claims that he wrote "Smash-It-All", they both go to court. Then, in front of the judge, John Doe need only demo the program and type the password trigger. The password would then trigger Mr. Doe's identity algorithm, which might display a screen such as, "John Doe is the author of this program!".

Did God write any exception rules? Yes! Remember when Jesus walked on water? _It was to demonstrate proof of His identity._ You'll find the source code for the exception rule in Job 9:8, "(God) _alone_ stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.". If _we_ were coding it, it might look something more like this:

IF JESUS THEN (Allow to walk on water)

We will discuss the details of this miracle further, along with those of other miracles, in the chapter, "Identity Miracles". But for this section, we'll return to the concept of a _stable_ _rules side_ , which allows the technique of the Scientific Method to work. So, other than special exceptions, the rules side requires a specific, long-term period of _lack of intervention,_ if we are to be able to apply reverse engineering. So it is appropriate to note here that many of the _prophecies_ concerning the last days before Christ's return _indicate just such a long period of non-intervention on God's part before His activity resumes._

The battle with Gog of Magog described in Ezekiel 38-39 is such an example. In this "end times" battle, God startles participants by intervening supernaturally. From the description in Ezekiel, it appears as though they hadn't anticipated His existence, nor His ability to act. God intervenes _directly and mightily_ , saving Israel and destroying most of the attackers. He explains to Israel, in the post-battle comments of Ezekiel chapter 39, _why He had been silent for so long._

"From that day forward the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God. And the nations will know that the people of Israel went into exile for their sin, because they were unfaithful to me. So I hid my face from them and handed them over to their enemies, and they all fell by the sword. I dealt with them according to their uncleanness and their offenses, and I hid my face from them." (Ezekiel 39:22-24)

What was Israel's offense? Not recognizing the Day of the Lord's Coming, as stated in Luke 19:41-44: "As (Jesus) approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, 'If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.'"

It is important to note here that none of these prophecies give other nations _license_ to harm Israel. Israel has been and still remains the "apple of God's eye". Nations that harm Israel will answer to God for their actions. But God didn't have to _command_ the nations to attack Israel. _That_ they did eagerly enough on their own. All God had to do was to remove His protective covering from the Land. Moses had said He would do this when the nation disobeyed Him.

We must explain here the reason _why_ Israel could be held so very accountable by God for making such a mistake. The _judgment_ for making the mistake, after all, was enormous. It included being driven from the land _for two thousand years!_ Throughout that time, the people were persecuted horrifically among the nations. How could they be held accountable for missing a specific day, if God hadn't told them, in advance, precisely for which day to keep watch?

He did. The day is specified in the Book of Daniel, chapter 9 verse 25, which reads, "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'"

The commands, "Know and understand this" are key. Daniel, and through him Israel, were commanded to understand what this statement meant, even though the time specified was presented as a calculation based on a future event. The phrase "Anointed One" is most specific. In the Hebrew, it uses the word for , "Messiah". In the Greek, the word would be, "Christ". So this command from God to "Know and understand" was given to Israel and, through Israel, to the world: to watch for the coming of the Messiah, which was being specified _to the very day He would appear!_

The _timing_ was relative to a decree that was yet to come. The decree was that which commanded, specifically, the rebuilding and restoring of Jerusalem. This decree was, in fact, later recorded in the book of Nehemiah, chapter 2, when the event occurred. The command noted there was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C. The details of all these things, along with more details of the calculation of the date on which the Messiah would appear, may be found in a good number of sources, one of which, at the time of this writing, was available here on the Internet.

A brief overview of the calculation follows:

The decree of Nehemiah chapter 2 started the countdown to the arrival of the Messiah. The countdown was described as groups of 'sevens'. Each 'seven' represented a group of seven years. The days per year for Israel and Babylon at the time of the prophecy consisted of 360 days. So (7+62) "sevens'' of 360-days each would total 173,880 days. From the issuing of the decree on March 14, 445 B.C., to the day the Messiah would appear, would be 173,880 days. The resulting date, the "day" which Israel was held accountable for recognizing, was April 6, 32 A.D. This day would later be known as, "Palm Sunday". This was the day Jesus allowed Himself to be publicly proclaimed, "Messiah". Note that there were a number of occasions previous to that day, on which Jesus specifically told people _not_ to proclaim Him publicly. This day was also the day on which He wept over Jerusalem for what was to come. It was the day for which He held Israel accountable. For although on that day _some_ would proclaim Him, "Messiah", a week later, the majority would shout, "Crucify him!".

This was why there was duality within the messianic prophecies. Some prophecies stated the Messiah would be exalted and reign forever. Some proclaimed the Messiah would suffer terribly. The prophecies were _not_ foretelling two separate Messiahs, but one Messiah Who would experience _both_ outcomes as part of fulfilling God's plan.

After specifying how to calculate the date on which the Messiah would appear, the prophecy in Daniel 9 continued by saying that the Messiah would then be executed, though not for Himself. _It was for our salvation that He died._ He died in our place. He took God's judgment upon Himself. The explanation that this had all been part of God's plan had been previously foretold in great detail in Isaiah chapter 53.

The Daniel 9 prophecy continued by saying, "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." This happened, in detail, in A.D. 70, when the Romans destroyed both the city and the sanctuary. The event is noted in Daniel as taking place _after_ the Messiah has appeared. So no others can qualify as "the Messiah" after that event. No others could qualify after A.D. 70. No others can qualify now.

Although the point of this chapter is the "Scientific Method", and not prophecy, it was necessary to document _why_ we have had such a long period - two thousand years - of supernatural silence. It is exactly because of this period of "non-intervention" that the "rules side" has been stable and testable. God's intervention resumes sometime after Israel returns to the Land. Israel returned to the Land in 1948. And so, we are near the time of Israel's redemption and reawakening. Zechariah 12:10-14 describes the period of Israel's redemption. This prophecy has interesting details that link the identity of Jesus to God:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, and all the rest of the clans and their wives."

Like the prophecy in Ezekiel, this one requires that there first be a period when Israel does _not_ recognize why they were cast out of the land, so that the fulfillment of the prophecy can stand in contrast to that time. Notice that this one in Zechariah links three phrases:

  1. "They will look on _me_ (God)"

  2. "the _one they have pierced_ (Jesus on the cross)"

  3. "and grieve bitterly for _him_ as one grieves for a _firstborn son_ (Jesus)".

When Israel realizes what has happened, when the Holy Spirit has been "poured out on them", they will repent and be redeemed. They will all mourn in sorrow for what they have done to God. Joy will come later, but repentance comes first. We who are gentiles cannot point the finger of blame at Israel, for we were not seeking God at all, but were drawn in by a loving God in spite of ourselves.

There is a similar background for the period of supernatural silence implied in the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:3-9, which reads:

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. "

This section prophesies the coming of the Doctrine of Uniformitarianism, which is the current basis for claiming that the earth is billions of years old. "Nothing has happened out of the ordinary" is the claim by the scoffers. This claim would not be credible if there were not an extreme period of supernatural silence beforehand. It is this long period of non-intervention which allows the Scientific Method to work so well.

How the Scientific Method actually argues _for_ The Programming Model

Quite a claim, to be sure! Let's consider it.

If The Programming Model accurately describes the way this creation has been built, and considering God's instruction to us to explore and understand the world He has made for us, _we should expect that He'd size algorithms on the coding side appropriately for us to discover them from the results side_. Teachers understand this concept as creating "age-appropriate" or "challenge-appropriate" material. For example, you don't give first-graders Calculus! You teach them how to count and how to add.

Similarly, God wrote F=ma.

He _could_ have written:

F=234712384.13298818273041 **m** * 3254254.123 **a**.

Or, He could have written:

F=ma on Mondays, between 2:00 and 3:30 p.m. but F=.5ma on Tuesdays, except if the Tuesday falls on the 4th...

...and so on. Aren't you glad the IRS didn't code our reality?

Some of the formulas in physics and chemistry that have helped launch our modern technology include:

F=m·a

P·V=n·R·T

m1·v1=-m2·v2

P1·V1/T1=P2·V2/T2

I=E/R

e=m·c2

and so on.

Note how nice and neat these formulas are! Yes, discovering them can be challenging. Those who discover them deserve all the credit they get, for by understanding them, we have been able to improve our lives dramatically. But, again, note how simple they are! God has placed them for us to find as something like an Easter-Egg hunt.

Many of these formulas are comprehensible at the high school and college level and that's exactly where we teach them. The "deeper" understandings, such as how quarks work, require intense study and, often, collaborative effort, yet all that we have discovered to date, has, in retrospect, made sense to us at our ability level. Our world is discernible at an appropriate level for us. That matches what we would expect God to code for us. He wanted us to explore and understand it.

This is not the type of situation we would expect from a random, unguided universe. A random one would have something more like laws that vary, or are unfathomably complex, or are even unstable. The fact that we can use the Scientific Method and actually discern laws that make sense to us is testimony both to the existence of our Designer and His thoughtfulness in preparing a universe for us to experience and explore.
Chapter 9 – Food for Thought

"The LORD said to him, 'Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?'"

Exodus 4:11 New International Version

Thoughts have no mass. They have no size. They are independent of time. They require no energy. They simply exist.

Now consider God. This is how God describes Himself to us in John 1:1-5...

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. "

Consider also the ways God has chosen to represent Himself to us throughout time:

A burning bush. Exodus 3:1-10

A pillar of fire. Exodus 13:21-22

A pillar of cloud. Exodus 13:21-22

A still-small voice. 1 Kings 19:11-18

A dove. John 1:32

Jesus. Hebrews 1:3

He has said that He made us in His image. Yet, we are also told that no one has seen God at any time; that the Son has revealed Him.

So back up to the beginning. God existed. Nothing else. There was no light yet, for He had not defined it. There was no space, no mass, no time, no heaven, no earth, for neither had He defined these.

Only God. And yet He tells us that He has declared the end from the beginning...that he knew everything that would happen before any of it did. That He knew all that would be required of Him before He began making anything or anyone. That He would one day let us beat Him and nail Him to a tree to show us how much He was willing to give up to get us back.

Note also the duality of that moment. In the crucifixion, man was fulfilling his own sinful desires (killing God) and God was fulfilling His righteous desires (paying the price to redeem sinful man). That one act had both parties doing exactly what they wanted to do.

So does God have a form? He has character. He has love. He has patience. He has long-suffering. He is also just. All of these traits He demonstrated to us on Calvary. The fruits of the Spirit were always His to begin with.

If you were God, what would you do? How would you convey an understanding of what love is, of what good is, of what life is? How would you give life to someone else and help them understand what's good and what's not?

The record in Genesis said God showed Adam what he had made and gave Adam the Garden both for him to enjoy and for him to tend. Funny, I don't remember Adam ever saying, "Thank you!". I don't remember Adam or Eve saying, "This is beautiful! You've done a nice job making this!" They just enjoyed it. Perhaps they had no perspective.

I also don't remember God saying, "I've created you to bow down and worship me and to kill things and sacrifice them to me!". It wasn't until _after_ the Fall that sacrifices were instituted. Adam and Eve chose leaves. God chose skins. Skins require the shedding of blood; the death of the innocent. In the contrast between leaves and skins, God was already modeling for us the difference between works and faith.

He showed us this again, shortly thereafter, in the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. Grain represented works; the lamb represented the death of the innocent substitute. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of Sin." Whose blood? Jesus's. But all these earlier sacrifices served as the model for what was to come.

I suspect that God called us to focus on Him after the Fall for our own benefit. It's like a coach who tells his team, "You can make it. You can win this. Just focus on me and you'll be OK!". Peter demonstrated this when he tried to walk on water. As long as he focused on Jesus, he was fine. As soon as he didn't, he sank. This is the way to overcome.

We ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before we did that, we lived in a state where all our needs were provided for. How much perspective can you get in such a state? Isn't that what some people call, "being raised with a silver spoon in your mouth"? This phrase is derogatory, but everyone understands what is implies: that the person in such a state has no clue about what's important and how thankful they should be for what they're given. They lack perspective. They lack empathy.

Compare the _first_ book of the Bible to the _last_ book: Genesis to Revelation. Compare Adam and Eve in the garden to the elders, the Church, in heaven. In the garden, Adam and Eve didn't even say, "Thank you.". In heaven, when God gives the elders crowns to glorify them, they _thank_ God by throwing their crowns at His feet and then praising Him. Of the ten lepers Jesus healed, only one returned to thank Him. Jesus asked, "Where are the others?". Apparently the others were like Adam and Eve.

That's how we were in the Garden. But we ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Tell me...since then...have you seen examples of good? Have you seen examples of evil? Have you been able to do something of a comparison/contrast of the two? Was Hitler bad? Was Lincoln good? Was Lincoln better than Hitler?

These are just two more recent examples of good and bad. Others, innumerable others, exist through history.

Do you think we have a better understanding of good and evil now than in the Garden?

Do you think we would have understood it as well if we had stayed in the Garden?

Do you think we would appreciate the Garden more now?

Do you think we would be more thankful to God now?

Did you ever notice that while _God_ pronounced parts of His Creation "good" as He made them, the first thing that _we_ judged "good" was the very fruit which killed us (Gen. 3:6)?

Did you ever notice _which_ of the six days of Creation was not pronounced "good" by God? Day two. Do you realize _why_ it was not called "good"? What later happened to all of the water that was lifted up above the sky? Hint: Noah.

So perhaps God was able to use our eating from the tree for something good. To give us perspective. To allow us to appreciate better the good things He gives us. To better endure tough times without whining.

So, in the end, does it matter whether or not He has a particular form? Doesn't it matter more Who He is, rather than what He looks like? What form would you choose that could accurately portray the inner Him?

He chose a body that had "no form or comeliness, that we should desire Him". The Tabernacle was just a tent: plain on the outside and beautiful on the inside. That pretty much matches the description of Jesus.

We like to think we are totally independent of God. But how much do we depend on him for every action we take?

We want an apple. So we reach for it and take it from a basket. We eat it and enjoy it. There. We've done something independent. Or have we?

If you've seen Ben Stein's film "Expelled", you should also have seen the clip from,  "Journey into the Cell". Remember all of the activity taking place inside the cell? Mind-boggling! Remember how well-synchronized was all of the activity inside the cell?...How everything worked together? ...And things weren't crashing into each other or missing parts that were needed? Another clip, "Inner life of the Cell", was developed for Harvard University.  A third clip contains a similar video with full commentary.

So when you decided to reach for the apple, how many decisions did you make? What did you have to focus on? Think, for a moment, how many actions were taken inside each cell of your arm, shoulder, and body just to follow your request to extend your arm and reach for the apple.

What did the decision to reach for the apple cost you? You had to endure the feeling of a slight stress on your arm, a minor expenditure of energy. To you, the move was simple enough that you didn't even have to think much about it.

What did the cells have to do to keep up with your single decision. Keep Ben Stein's video in mind. Did the cells have to take one thousand actions for your one decision? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? For your one decision?!?

Now apply The Programming Model. Consider that our world is virtualized. The basis for your cells doing what they do is accommodated by God's mind, a portion of which is on loan to you. If you compare the number of decisions required of simulation software to perform even the most minor of actions, once again, you see a leveraging. For every minor action performed inside the cell, many orders of magnitude _more_ are required by the virtualization software to keep up and to provide for and to accommodate the action within the cell needed to fulfill _your single request_. And since the virtualization software that we use is simply a method for representing thoughts, this means that innumerably more thoughts are required in God's mind for even the slightest action in each virtual cell.

Computers do this. That's why we can understand this design. But our simulations only scratch the surface of what would be required to simulate and maintain our reality. What we see computers do, during simulations, would be the most exhausting, time-consuming work in any normal, real-world parallel.

So when you decided to reach for the apple, how many decisions did you make? How many did God have to make to accommodate your decision? Did you thank Him for His help? Or did you not thank Him, because you thought He wasn't involved or that He wouldn't want to help you, or simply that He doesn't exist.

If the apple is a portion of His Word, did you thank Him for letting you take it? You made the decision to eat it. That decision has consequences on many levels. Here are a few of the more obvious ones:

No one else can eat the apple.

The apple is digested inside you.

You poop it out later.

If I loan you my car for the day, do you thank me? What if you simply _find_ my car, with the keys in it and a sign, "This is mine, but you may borrow it." Do you leave a thank you note for me? Do you rip off the sign and say, "This is my car. The one who left a message that it was his doesn't really exist."

How about if there was a crowd standing around the car, with the sign still on. What if the crowd chanted, "Take it! It's yours! The sign is fake! There is no one to thank for this car! See, we're all taking these other cars! Why should you be any different?!? Do you think you're _better_ than we are?"

Instead of a car, imagine if I loan you a laptop to play a virtual reality game such as "World of WarcraftTM". You can manipulate your character any way you like as you explore that virtual world and interact with others. But I'm supplying the memory and power that allows you to do it. It's on loan. Do you thank me or do you just take it? If I say I'll be back at some point and turn the machine off, do you believe me? Or do you say to yourself, "He'll never come back! Why...he doesn't even really exist! This machine will run forever and the game is free!".

Won't you be surprised when I come back, find you with that attitude, and I pull the plug and take my machine home. How will you enjoy your "virtual you" then?

What if I could run the software in my head? What if you could play World of WarcraftTM by using my personal memory? The computer's just got a physical representation of memory anyway. What if I could do it all in my mind. What if I allowed you to use a portion of my mind to play Warcraft, while I did other things, too? (I'm not anything of a multi-tasker in real-life, so this requires a significant level of imagination!)

You can relate to borrowing my car. You can relate to borrowing my laptop. Can you relate to borrowing the resources of my mind?

If I let you use them, and if I supply the software that supports the reality ("Warcraft") that you want to experience and enjoy (or perhaps to torture others with!), will you see borrowing them as a loan of my resources to you, just as were the car and the laptop? How is borrowing my memory different?

If I could separate a portion of my memory for you to use, who would be responsible for what happens with it? Me, or you? If you were to misuse it, I might warn you once, twice, maybe even three times. Then I'd probably kick you off "my system" and not let you use my things. Do you understand?

So how might God phrase all this? Perhaps He'd say something like this:

(Note: This next section is _not_ Scripture! It's a dramatization so that you can consider things from God's perspective.)

"When you choose to reach for an apple, do you know how many of My resources you're actually using? You make one decision: reach for the apple. The reality I designed for you will require you to endure and remember a little feedback feeling for the actions you take. I'll maintain the reality which allows you to make the move, but it's your decision to make it. The reality I've designed will make the infinite number of sub-calculations needed to accommodate your single decision: to reach for the apple. The reality will adjust all other objects and people to accommodate how your decision affects everything: no one else gets the apple, the apple gives you some energy, the apple is digested and turns to poo. I'll even help you get rid of the trash.

So, in this simple act: in reaching for the apple, because you wanted it...how much did _you_ do and how much did _I_ do? How much do _you_ consciously do to keep your body alive moment by moment? On Whom does your life depend? Is your life the body I gave you, or is it independent of that. Does your life require My support or are you truly independent. If you _were_ independent, but were wicked, would it be reasonable for me to keep supporting you? Could I really keep 'sending you an energy allowance' to let you keep doing things? If I didn't cut off your support at _some_ time, wouldn't I simply be perpetuating evil forever? Would that be a good thing?

Consider the Titanic. The ship was captivating in its beauty, while afloat. But it was sinking. Should the passengers have focused on its beauty, still present, or on the fact that it was sinking? This world _is_ the Titanic. There are parts that are still beautiful, but it's sinking, nonetheless. I can't perpetuate evil forever.

I have as many lifeboats as needed. And I have purchased one for you. But you must decide to leave the Titanic and get into the lifeboat. I'll help you. I'll give you everything you need. Life will be better! Just get in!"
Chapter 10 - Faith versus Works

_"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. "_ Ephesians 2:8-10 NIV

_"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."_ James 2:26 NIV

One of the benefits of viewing our lives through The Programming Model is that it helps us to picture our lives more as _decisions and experiences_ , rather than as _material_. The materialist, for example, might focus on a bigger, better house, car, or body. The Christian, on the other hand, is called to focus on a relationship with Jesus, and with other people ("Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself."). To the Christian, houses, cars, and bodies are incidental. They are temporary, and useful only for interacting with others until God returns and presents the final reality. (At least that's how it's _supposed_ to work, in theory.)

Of course, the world always tends to follow the materialist more than the Christian. The pull of the senses entices us to forget the way things really are and to focus on what our senses tell us they are. Remember our example of the park bench? The reality is that it is invisible, mass-wise. But our eyes, which represent our visual sense, tell us it is solid. Which do we believe? How about the example of reaching for the apple? We extended our arm and took the apple, right? More precisely, we made the _decision_ to extend our arm, having considered the feedback feelings that action would require of us in the way of effort and having anticipated the feedback feelings of sweetness that our taste sense would provide us if we succeeded in chomping into the apple.

"Feedback feelings"? Yes. According to the model, that's what our actions boil down to. Are you exhausted from exercising? Good for you for exercising! Did you run five miles? Do a hundred pushups? Swim a mile? Well then, you have good reason to be exhausted! You'll probably be stiff and sore tomorrow, too! But its all good. You'll be stronger for it! But then, if you view your body as virtual, did you really accomplish anything? If your body's virtual, what does it matter whether you exercise or not?

Let's consider this. Suppose your body is virtual. Picture it like wearing a glove. Your spirit "wears" it and it generates feelings that your spirit experiences. The mechanics of the body run according to the laws God wrote for it and are observable to the tiniest level. But these are simply the interactions of the material body with the material world and both of these can be virtualized. Your virtual eyes can inspect your virtual body. If you poke your virtual arm, you will feel it in your spirit. We can trace the nerve impulses back as far as the brain, but ultimately, there is a pass-through to the spirit, for spirits are what the Bible tells us we really are.

Remember that God _breathed_ into the body to make Adam. The body was an interface. Adam was the spirit inside. The body returned to the earth. The spirit returns to God.

Your spirit gets the feedback of whatever happens to your virtual body. So is your virtual body real? Well, your virtual body _is_ real so long as God _says_ it is real, because He is the One sustaining this reality. We tend to resist that concept, just as we found it easier to see the park bench as solid, when it was really hollow. We see things as appearing solid and permanent, so we presume they are. The only One telling us that they are not permanent is God. He has said that this Creation will pass away to be replaced by a new, better one. He will provide your spirit with a _better_ body in the next reality. _That's why Paul talks of the "spiritual body" (I Cor 15:42-49), for that one is designed to fully accommodate the needs and abilities of a spiritual being!_ How well will _that_ body fit? Well, how well does _this_ one fit? If this one works well, it is testimony to the abilities of the Designer, as was the well-built car we used in the chapter "Just Drivin' Through".

So is the real you the glove, or the thing that inhabits the glove? What is the exhaustion you now feel after exercising? It's a feeling, right? What's the stiffness and soreness you'll feel tomorrow? It'll be a feeling, right? There may be ramifications to deal with tomorrow. You may limp a bit or nurse a blister or two. But if you continue the investment in exercise, your body should gradually grow stronger and be able to do more. If you didn't exercise, you wouldn't feel the exhaustion today or the soreness tomorrow. But in the end, you'd be able to do less, rather than more. So your decision entails ramifications.

Again, if your body is virtual, you experience the feelings that it generates, according to the rules God has written for it. If you make the decision to exercise consistently, your body will probably "look" better. You can proudly show it off in front of the other avatars, to produce the responses of lust, envy, admiration, jealousy, and anger, to name a few.

Look at your muscles! _Are_ they your muscles? Is it an image or are they for real? Well, they are the reality you've been given for the present time. If you exercise them and are willing to endure the feedback feelings of exhaustion and soreness while you develop them, you will be given a bonus: a bigger, better avatar, at least for a time. As soon as you stop exercising, the avatar will slowly begin to deteriorate again.

This is not a recommendation to avoid exercise! On the contrary, it's good to do so! But what you're really developing during your effort of build-up is the experience and character of discipline, long suffering, and persistence. Have you seen some of these same words listed somewhere else before? The Fruits of the Spirit, perhaps? Doesn't the Bible say that these things will remain, while this world will not?

So let's say you do exercise. You gain the knowledge of what it takes, pain and investment-wise, to complete the task. You gain the experience of having felt the feelings and enduring them. So if you're called upon to strive and endure something at some other time, perhaps you won't be as much of a whiner as you would otherwise! If you had remained in the Garden of Unemployment, would you ever have learned these things? So hasn't God actually turned a bad thing into a good thing by helping you to learn something worthwhile?

If your body is an avatar of sorts, then the real you, the eternal you, is making decisions, enduring discomforts, and reaping the rewards of the effort. Let's say God gives you a super-body later. Like a better car after a lesser one, you'll understand and appreciate the better body, having experienced the lesser one.

So are works virtual? Of course they are! This world's temporary, isn't it? This world's a shadow of the one to come, isn't it? Then your works are not so much _doing_ things as they are _making the decision_ to do things and then enduring the feedback feelings from doing them.

So why are works better than having faith, as James argues? Here's why: How much feedback feeling is required of faith? Very little. You believe you are saved by grace. You are! Good for you. Did you have to endure anything other than a feedback feeling of joy when you made that decision to accept God's offer? On the other hand, how much feedback feeling is required after you decide to travel to a remote place and endure great hardship to preach the Gospel and to help the less fortunate? Quite a lot. The enduring of such things as: years of weariness, sickness, persistence, and long-suffering are examples of feedback feelings you might encounter from the ramifications of that decision. Your works show your faith. They do!

If you have been given a temporary, virtual body, to operate in a temporary, virtual world, your works become entirely decisions to initiate actions and to endure the feedback feelings and experiences that result. Faith decisions are pretty much decisions only, usually accompanied by feelings of gratitude and joy, as are rightly due and given. Works decisions are decisions, too, and are usually accompanied by feelings of exhaustion, smells of body odor, tastes of dry mouth, sounds of "Keep going!" beyond what you can bear, and visions of gnats stuck in your eyes.

That's another reason why salvation is by _choice_. If it _were_ by works – which it isn't – you're works wouldn't be anything more than making decisions _to have God do the work anyway!_ Suppose you could be granted salvation by completing a marathon. Who would be "running" the race anyway? Wouldn't it be God? _He's_ providing the support for every detail of the reality that allows your body to make every movement it makes! _You're_ just deciding to make Him make your body run! So after you finish your marathon, who deserves to be the more exhausted – you or God? So _decisions_ – choices – are the only thing you're capable of making anyway!

God has designed this Creation for you to interact with others and with Him. Do so. See a burning bush? Take your shoes off! Need to pay Caesar a coin? Go fish! Need to feed five thousand? Bring Him what little you already have! Need wine? Bring Him jars of water! Need to win a battle? Get rid of anyone who's afraid! Interact! You want God to do something? He'll probably ask _you_ to do something first. It's your _decision_ whether or not to do it, knowing that if you choose "Yes", you'll have to endure the consequences. But think of the stories you'll be able to tell your grandchildren!
Chapter 11 – Identity Miracles

"Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation."

Colossians 1:15 New Living Translation

It is disheartening to see so many people "give up" on the miracles of Jesus. I read one commentary years ago that claimed that Jesus didn't really walk on water, but rather on a sand bar, so that it _looked_ like He was walking on water. Doubters seem to vary between, "There were _natural explanations_ for the miracles.", to the more outlandish, "There were _many_ famous people healing others and walking on water back then, so Jesus was not so unusual."

What makes this situation worse is that many of the larger, mainstream denominations have commonly caved to the pressure of the world on these issues. "Did God really say?" was a question that not only led to our fall in Genesis 3, but that has also pounded many seminaries for the past two centuries and has caused a theological retreat of enormous proportions.

People, it is time to take back this ground! Those who, all along, held onto faith in the miracles as is – simply because the Bible said so, do indeed occupy the higher ground. There is, perhaps, more evidence now than ever before to back up their faith as correct.

The miracles of Jesus are miracles of identity. They are presented not simply to attract attention, but to verify who He is. They are presented to authenticate Him as the true Messiah. The enemy will also do miracles during the end times. But those miracles are simply to attract attention. However, since some of them are described beforehand, they too will be used for identity, though the world at that time will not understand. Perhaps it would be better to call those "miracles of _dis_ traction".

So why did Jesus, for example, spit into dust to heal a man's eyes? _Because that's how He did it in Genesis chapter One when He made man!_ There is only one Person in the universe who can mold mud to fashion living body parts and that person is the one, true God! So when Jesus spit into dust, He made it able to be molded. He then molded it into eye parts to heal a man's eyes. This time, we had witnesses who watched Him do it! If God wanted to make a man out of Play Doh ™, He most certainly could. He could make a man out of Jello ™, Cool Whip ™, or Ivory Soap ™, for that matter. And that's exactly the point. God makes all of the rules, so God can change the rules as He wishes. In this case, He quietly changed the rule to let us know who Jesus was.

God is not bound by Natural Law. He _wrote_ Natural Law. He is not _under_ it. He designed and maintains it! We know that "F=ma", because He _wrote_ "F=ma". He wrote it so that we could discover it and learn from it! Instead, as usual, we discover "F=ma" and think, "That's too complicated for the God of the Bible! So now we don't need God!".

By making eye parts out of mud, Jesus verified that He was the One from Genesis 1: the One who made man. By making eye parts out of mud, Jesus also showed that He is not bound by His laws of nature, which He wrote and which He can change. This power is exactly what we would expect from The Programming Model, because this is the type of thing programmers do all the time. When we need to change the rules, we simply change the rules! We write the rules, so we can change them whenever we want! In our case, however, we have to use the crutch of an electronic, chip-based model of a mind – a computer – rather than our own mind.

On a more subtle level, the miracle of eye parts from mud also showed Jesus' authority. Because in our larger, more sophisticated computer systems, authority is required before someone is permitted access to the rules level. By showing that He could freely operate at that level, Jesus showed that He was above all others in authority, because He had full access to the rules level.

This is also why He walked on water. Job 9:8 says about God, "He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." (NIV) Notice the qualifier "alone". No one but God can do these two things. Notice the linkage by the word "and". That means that the One who can do the first thing can also do the second. So if you see someone walking on water, you can be sure He's the One who stretches out the heavens. So who is Jesus? He's the One who stretches out the heavens! He is God!

Because this particular miracle happened during the "Fourth watch of the night", it happened when the night sky was at its darkest. So when the sea became calm and the sky cleared, the disciples could see the stars – the heavens – behind and around Jesus. What a wonderful way to illustrate the point! They had just seen Him walk on water and now they could see the stars behind and around Him. If this had happened during the daytime, they would not have been able to see and appreciate this (though I'm not sure any of them understood it at the time).

Because the record describes it as it does, we can "travel along" with them in our minds and picture things from their description. So because of the time noted, the location noted, and the position of Jesus relative to them, we know that we – if we had been there – would have seen the stars all around us and around Jesus! This is perhaps the best, clearest way of illustrating Job 9:8 that one can imagine!

Here is the passage, for you to read yourself.

Matthew 14 :22-33:

Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.

But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."

"Come," he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"

Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Now the _way_ that He walked on water was the same as the way for making eye parts out of dust and spittle: by authorizing a rules exception. He writes and maintains the rules; so He can change them at any time, too.

There is something else important to note about the initial reaction of the disciples in this event. "When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. 'It's a ghost,' they said, and cried out in fear. "

I can relate to the reaction of the disciples. I'm sure I would have reacted the same way. Wouldn't you? If, however, the disciples had had the Scriptures memorized and had had enough valium so as not to be frightened, they might have said simply, "Oh He's walking on water! That's in the book of Job. Because He's walking on water, He is therefore also the One who stretches out the heavens, i.e, God!"

_Note that it's also helpful to the case for authenticity that the disciples reacted as they did._ They _didn't_ cite the scripture from Job and neither did Jesus. They jumped to a false, but very human, conclusion that He was some sort of ghost. Nowhere thereafter in the Bible, as best I can recall, does it comment on this section to tie the "walking on water" with the verse in Job.

That's good! Why? Because if there _had_ been mention made of this tie in, people could argue that the whole episode was simply contrived. A contrived version would probably read more like, "...and Jesus said, "There, there, scaredy cats! I was just takin' a walk on this here water so as to fulfill Job 9:8! At this, the disciples all applauded." (Phony 14:25-26, NIV) The _real_ version is much more compelling! These were real people who had no clue as to what was going on or why it was happening, at least, at the time. The tie-in between Job 9:8 and Matthew 14:25 has always been there, quietly, just waiting to be found by anyone diligent enough to search for it.

Loaves and Fishes

Here is one of the passages, for reference:

Mark 6:34-44

By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. "This is a remote place," they said, "and it's already very late. Send the people away so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat."

But he answered, "You give them something to eat."

They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?"

"How many loaves do you have?" he asked. "Go and see."

When they found out, they said, "Five—and two fish."

Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

Comments:

Both Elisha and Moses were also participants in supplying people with food miraculously. With Moses, it was manna. With Elisha, it was multiplying loaves and jars of oil. These are noteworthy for comparison, because Moses and Elisha (like Elijah) represent the categories of "the Law" and "the Prophets", respectively. So by Jesus performing this act as well, the testimony of the Law and the Prophets was with Him.

But there is more. By multiplying the loaves and fishes, Jesus was also bringing into existence out of nothing, both matter and energy. He spoke and it was done. He said, "Feed them.", and that was sufficient. Physicists will recognize that Jesus, in doing this, was violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

So perhaps we should modify the definition and add the words, "except by God, Who _made_ that rule in the first place!". Just as with the molding of eye parts from dust, so this miracle demonstrated His ability to produce things that were described in Genesis chapter one. So we have the miracles of bringing matter and energy into existence from nothing and making man (parts) from mud. And in both of these miracles, we had witnesses there to observe, verify, and count the leftovers! The proof is there for anyone to see: Jesus is God and God is able to do what was described in Genesis one, exactly as written!

But there is more yet. Jesus, by multiplying the _loaves_ and _fish_ , also demonstrated that part of Genesis chapter one where God "filled the Earth" with them: both _plants_ and _creatures_. Again, we had witnesses this time to document His doing this. Genesis one, repeated before our very eyes!

But there is more still. Multiplying objects in this way is precisely what programmers do. In the language I used to use, we knew it as the "REDIM" command. This command would be used whenever it was necessary to generate more or less of something. So, for example, if we were writing a simulation of this episode, we could use the commands: REDIM LOAVES(5), FISH(2), and then, to multiply them, REDIM LOAVES (5000), FISH(5000), and so forth. So there is again, in this, a hint of things we do routinely in software. Could it be another signpost for us to follow?

Note also Deuteronomy 8:3:

"He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord."

Jesus quoted this verse in Matthew 4:4:

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.,"

It is worth noting here that Jesus gave the people _both_ bread _and_ the Word of God. Again, the tying together of the two is reminiscent of the two acts noted in the miracle of walking on the water.

Note also 2 Kings 4:42-44

Feeding of a Hundred

A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain. "Give it to the people to eat," Elisha said.

"How can I set this before a hundred men?" his servant asked.

But Elisha answered, "Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the Lord says: 'They will eat and have some left over.'" Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over, according to the word of the Lord.

In this case also, there were leftovers! Not only does that mean there was complete sufficiency, but it makes the source of the miracle similar by context to the miracle performed by Jesus. Since the Old Testament had been standardized by Jesus' time (the Septuagint version), one could recognize this source of generating of "more than enough" as God's work verified. Psalm 23, "My cup runneth over.", comes also to mind.

Further comment on Multiplying the Loaves and Fishes...

We have stated in the comments on the miracle of Loaves and Fishes that Jesus brought matter and energy into existence from nothing. It is also possible that He simply took existing matter and energy and rearranged it, so that no "new" creation would be necessary. Why do we mention this? Because many denominations have long taught that God ended this Creation after the first week and has added nothing new since. Sometimes, there are good theological reasons for such positions and sometimes there are not.

For example, if God created other humans directly, beyond just Adam and Eve, then there would be the question of "Are they sinless – do they need a savior, too, or not?". God hasn't done this, which greatly simplifies the logical problem for us, although it was mentioned that "God could turn these stones into sons of Abraham!" (John the Baptist said this). So how would God have dealt with that issue, if He actually had turned stones into sons of Abraham? Only God knows! But I'm sure He'd have had an answer that made sense. He always does!

We will raise one more point and then conclude this matter. Some denominations have made statements such as, "God's former works, now ceased." in regards to such things as the Creation Week. Implicit in this is the statement of "We don't have a clue how He did it in Genesis One, so we're making that a special case and putting it beyond question (so that we don't have to defend it!)." Typical along these lines, are the presentations of Genesis chapter one as a "Creation Hymn" or as a "Poem", which means that "We don't know what it means!".

Frankly, these weak responses are commonly the result of long term badgering by those who hold to naturalism (the view that the natural world and Laws of Nature are all that exist). Whole denominations have wrongly caved to such arguments. God created the Laws of Nature and exists fully independent of and above them, as The Programming Model amply demonstrates.

So did Jesus create matter and energy in multiplying the loaves and fishes, or did He just rearrange what had already been made? I don't know. But I do know that He could have made it from nothing. That is also the interpretation that should be taken by default, until proof is presented otherwise. There appears to be no detail or clarification to the contrary and the only reason to say He didn't appears to be to satisfy those who wish to keep the Creation Week out of bounds.

There is a precedent that does apply. It has to do with the raising of Lazarus. When Jesus was about to raise Lazarus, the rebuttals were, "If only you had been here before He died." As though Jesus could only heal him and not raise him from the dead. The second was, "But He's been dead for four days! He surely stinketh!" As though Jesus might have been able to raise him earlier, or possibly could not do anything about the smell! Obviously, these rebuttals were ridiculous. Jesus took care of everything, stench and all, by simply saying, "Lazarus, Come Out!".

What's the point? It's this: Although it is possible that Jesus "simply" rearranged existing matter for the loaves, it is a very dangerous path to head down to say that He could only do it this way. Arguing that way is exactly like those who argued against His ability to raise Lazarus. Nothing is impossible for Him. Nothing. And He has fully demonstrated that He needs no excessive prayer, particular wording, or anything else at all in order to do anything that He wants to do. He is God! He can do anything! Anything! We call matter and energy into existence routinely in our own software simulations. This would not be "tough" for God to do at all!

He is consistent. But sometimes it's hard for us to understand what His purposes are, as when He had Abraham head out to sacrifice his only son (Genesis 22). We now know that He had Abraham pre-enact the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary in remarkable detail in that episode. But who knew that at the time? (Although Abraham may have understood more than we commonly think, for he named the place, "Jehovah Jireh", because, "In the mountain of the Lord it shall be provided!".)

So we believe the best fit and the most reasonable understanding of the passage, based on what details are given, is that Jesus created Loaves and Fish and matter and energy from nothing... without hocus pocus, without lengthy chanting, moaning, or effort, but simply by saying "Thank you!" and passing out the results. This, therefore, becomes a fabulous demonstration of a reenactment of Genesis One, with witnesses present, to show that He created all things by simply saying so, as Genesis One records. All of the arguments of, "Could He? Couldn't He? What did He mean, exactly?" , regarding Genesis One should have melted away long ago with the realization that by witnessing His multiplying of the loaves and fishes, we were witnessing how He brought things into existence...no trumpets...no fanfare... just as is! He makes all of the rules!

Lest we forget, Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine at the Wedding in Cana. The text comes from John 2:1-11 and is repeated here:

"On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."

"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."

His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.

Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him."

Comments:

It is no accident that this was Jesus' _first_ miracle. He made that a point by saying, "My time has not yet come." Note also that He chose to turn water into wine. He could have chosen anything. Why water?

Reread Genesis 1:1-2:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Did you know that God created the earth out of water? Read also 2 Peter 3:5:

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and _by_ water."

Vincent's Word Studies, available at biblos.com, comments:

"Out of the water

Again no article. Render out of water; denoting not the position of the earth, but the material or mediating element in the creation; the waters being gathered together in one place, and the dry land appearing. Or, possibly, with reference to the original liquid condition of the earth - without form and void.".

He who is able to turn water into _wine_ is also able to turn water into _earth_. The fact that this was the _first_ miracle should be the hint to us to look at "the earliest references to God acting", that is, Genesis 1. So here we have a connection. The _six_ water pots were another hint - as in the _six_ days of Creation. The servants at Cana _witnessed_ Jesus turn ordinary water into something completely different. God did this also in Genesis 1, by creating the Earth out of water.

More than that, we had witnesses to tell us how much Jesus _had to do_ to accomplish the act: _nothing,_ except to order the servants to fill the jars. No stirring, no mixing, no loud incantations. Sorry. None! This is important, because when we read that "through Him were all things made", we may tend to think, "Oh! So Jesus was busy with His hammer and saw, etc." to build everything. But here we have confirmation that no activity is required. Jesus just authorizes a rules change: water to wine.

So did having all this power make Jesus any less human? Of course not. God is Spirit. So are you! How is the human condition working out for you? Do you feel any less human because you're really a spirit? So if God knows how to hook up us little spirits to bodies so that we feel all the joy and pain they encounter, He can do it for Himself, too! He _designed_ the body "interface"!
Chapter 12 – The Age of the Earth

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Exodus 20:11 New International version

Note: If you know nothing else about the rebuttals to evolution, you must at least know what "uniformitarianism" is and how it relates to the claims for the age of the Earth.

Do you believe the Earth is billions of years old? Why? Because everybody else believes it? Because that's what everyone's taught in school and in college? Do you know who Charles Lyell was? You need to. He was a lawyer. He's probably the person most responsible for why you believe as you do.

"More responsible than _Darwin_?", you ask.

"More responsible than Darwin."

"A _lawyer?_ ", you ask.

"Yes! A _lawyer;_ _not_ _a scientist_ "

"But hasn't science _proven_ the Earth is billions of years old?"

"In a word: no!"

"But what about radiometric dating? What about dinosaurs?"

This will take a bit of explaining. If you haven't heard these things before, you're in for a bit of a shock.

Let's start with _who Lyell was_ and _why he is important to all this_. Here's how the famous _evolutionist_ Stephen Jay Gould described Lyell's contribution:

"Charles Lyell was a **lawyer** by profession, and his book [ _Principles of Geology,_ 1830-1833] is one of the most brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate ... Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish ... In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Catastrophes and Steady-State Earth", in _Natural History_ , February, 1975, pp. 16, 17.

Next, look at what Lyell himself wrote in a letter to a friend:

"If we don't irritate, which I fear that we may... we shall carry all with us. If you don't triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P.S.... I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral."

(From Mortenson, T., _The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin_ , Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 226–227, citing Lyell, Katherine (Lyell's sister-in-law), _Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart_. (London: Murray, 1881), I:p. 268–271)

So what was this "Mosaic geology" that Lyell was talking about? It was the belief, previously held by most in the Judeo-Christian world, that the Earth was formed as described by the Bible. It was the belief that the Earth was only about six thousand years old. _That's_ what Lyell changed.

Yes, there are smoking-guns aplenty behind the issue of the age of the Earth. It was my original intent to present a polite, academic review of the issue. However, as I dug into more and more sources and as I reread papers that I had already seen many times before, I began to realize that it was not appropriate to be _polite_ as a response. The other side has, in this case, been unrelentingly at war with Christianity. It has been on the constant offensive for about two hundred years, with the gloves fully off. It has hidden under the guise of science, which as you will see shortly, it most certainly is _not_.

So this chapter will be an exposé...

The popular view of the age for the Earth is that the Earth is billions of years old. The _un_ popular view is that the Earth is _thousands_ of years old. Those who believe in an old age for the Earth commonly believe they are following the leading of science. I know I did. They tend to view those who believe in a _young_ age for the Earth as unscientific and irrational. _I know I did!_ Which view is correct? _We cannot travel back to the creation to see events for ourselves, so we are totally dependent on the reports of others for the truth._

On this issue, there has been a strong effort to ensure that public school textbooks present only one view: that the Earth is billions of years old. That view is presented as the unified view of science. So most of us and our children have grown up believing that science has proven that the Earth is billions of years old and that no credible rebuttal exists. Most laymen, teachers, and scientists, I believe, _have never heard_ _the rebuttal to this._

The rebuttal is based on the fact that there is a _false foundation_ under the claim for an old age for the Earth. The foundation is false, because it is implied to be proven science, but is really nothing more than _a presumption_. The presumption lies at the very root of our modern, secular curriculum in historical geology.

It is important to note before we continue, however, that the _ramifications_ of the view of an old Earth are nothing less than enormous. Those in _biology_ , for example, presume that our _geology_ has settled the matter. They therefore feel justified in claiming unfathomable lengths of time to mask the improbable events of evolution. This result, as we shall document, was always the intention of Charles Lyell and others, who convinced the world of the 1800's to drop the Mosaic Geology and to begin following the view that the Earth was very old. Who can say what happens in billions of years? _But how many would believe in evolution if the age of the Earth were only thousands of years?_

So this is a very important issue! The constant drumbeat of the chorus, "It is settled! It is science!", masks the truth beneath. And the belief in an old age for the Earth represents the very foundation of _evolutionary_ belief. If this foundation falls, the belief in evolution cannot stand. Because so many people have put all of their faith and trust into this belief, few would be willing to consider any other model for Creation. That is, of course, unless this belief that the Earth is very old can be proven false. So let us pull back the curtain on what has been going on...

We continue the documentation now with the text from the book I was given _when I took college geology_. This way, you can see what I saw. The textbook I was assigned was unusual, because it _actually admitted_ in its first few pages the presumption on which the _old_ age of the Earth is based. Not all texts do this. In fact, after searching a number of other texts, I found mine to be the _only one_ of the group that did mention it! The admission in my book was brief. It was barely mentioned in class. Thereafter, it was never brought up again and no one in my class, as best I recall, ever asked anything about it. The implication in my geology class was that the recognition of the presumption _as a presumption_ was _unimportant_.

Reprinted here, is the introductory text from my geology book. Note that it begins with a definition for a term. The term is "uniformitarianism". The text then admits that uniformitarianism is a presumption, rather than a fact.

(Underlining is added for emphasis.)

Source: Physical Geology, 4th Edition, L. Don Leet and Sheldon Judson, Copyright 1971 by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (Pages 2-3)

Text:

The Present is the Key to The Past

Modern geology was born in 1785 when James Hutton (1726-1797), a Scottish medical man, gentleman farmer, and geologist, formulated the principle that the same physical processes that are operating in the present also operated in the past. The principle is known to geologists as the doctrine of uniformitarianism, which simply means that the processes now operating to modify the Earth's surface have also operated in the geologic past, that there is a uniformity of processes past and present.

...We shall find that many of the conclusions of physical geology are based on the conviction that modern processes also operated in the past.

... Past processes presumably operated at the same slow pace as those of today. Consequently, very long periods of time must have been available for the processes to accomplish their tasks.

...The concept of unlimited time in Earth history is a necessary outgrowth of the application of the principle that "the present is the key to the past."

Comments:

The words that the writers used to qualify this explanation are critical. Note the words "principle", "conviction", "presumably", and "consequently". Here are definitions for these from the Web:

Principle: A basic generalization that is _accepted_ as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning.

Conviction: An unshakable belief in something _without need for proof or evidence_.

Presumably: Able to be sensibly presumed.

Consequently: Because of the reason given.

So the text is saying, "Because we _presume_ that past processes operated as slowly as those of today, the Earth must therefore be very old."

I don't believe that anyone in our class, including myself, caught the fact that the basis for our study of geology would be _a_ _presumption_. We went on to study stratigraphy, inversions, and index fossils, completely missing the fact that the interpretations of all of these things were based on this presumption. Instead, we simply memorized facts, figures, and methods as fast as we could and recited these dutifully on exams. When we had finished the course, we were fully equipped to recite the facts and figures in the context assigned them, never realizing that a stronger rebuttal existed to it all. I suspect that most students never even hear of this admission, since, as I said, some of the other textbooks I checked failed to even mention it. _Yet all of the interpretations of long ages depend completely on this presumption!_

The book cited James Hutton as the founder of modern geology. We will get to Hutton's _original_ statement in a moment. His original version was far more revealing than what appeared in my textbook. But first, we must look at the _importance_ attributed by our culture to Hutton's work.  Here is a tribute paid to him from the American Museum of Natural History Website (as of 2010).

The text is cited here for comment (underlining and bold added for emphasis):

"James Hutton: The Founder of Modern Geology

James Hutton (1726–1797), a Scottish farmer and naturalist, is known as the founder of modern geology. He was a great observer of the world around him. More importantly, he made carefully reasoned geological arguments. Hutton came to believe that the Earth was perpetually being formed; for example, molten material is forced up into mountains, eroded, and then eroded sediments are washed away. He recognized that the history of the Earth could be determined by understanding how processes such as erosion and sedimentation work in the present day. His ideas and approach to studying the Earth established geology as a proper science.

Another of Hutton's key concepts was the Theory of Uniformitarianism. This was the belief that geological forces at work in the present day—barely noticeable to the human eye, yet immense in their impact—are the same as those that operated in the past. This means that the rates at which processes such as erosion or sedimentation occur today are similar to past rates, making it possible to estimate the times it took to deposit a sandstone, for example, of a given thickness. It became evident from such analysis that enormous lengths of time were required to account for the thicknesses of exposed rock layers. Uniformitarianism is one of the fundamental principles of Earth science. Hutton's theories amounted to a frontal attack on a popular contemporary school of thought called catastrophism: the belief that only natural catastrophes, such as the Great Flood, could account for the form and nature of a 6,000-year-old Earth. The great age of Earth was the first revolutionary concept to emerge from the new science of geology."

Comments:

So Hutton is truly revered by leadership in the modern, secular world of geology as the founder of their science. He is their hero, who is credited with beginning the new direction. We note this here, before we examine his writings, so that you may know the importance they attach to his work.

Note also the latest entry in wikipedia for the definition of Uniformitarianism. In 2010, this wiki entry included in the definition, the phrase, "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world." It is similar to the phrase, "The present is the key to the past." and, in various similar forms, is a constant theme of any version of uniformitarianism. This phrase was prophesied two thousand years ago by the apostle Peter. We quote the prophecy here:

2 Peter 3:3-7, ISV

"First of all you must understand this: In the last days mockers will come and, following their own desires, will ridicule us by saying, "What happened to the Messiah's promise to return? Ever since our ancestors died, everything continues as it did from the beginning of creation." But they deliberately ignore the fact that:

1. "long ago the heavens existed and the Earth was formed by God's word out of water and with water, " (Supernatural Creation)

2. "by which the world at that time was deluged with water and destroyed." (Worldwide Flood)

Note how the phrase in bold in Peter's prophecy is the very phrase used in definitions of uniformitarianism. More striking, even, are the two facts cited by Peter, which these people in the last days will specifically deny: The Supernatural Creation and the Genesis Flood. Note next, as we read Hutton's original wording, how he deliberately denies these two events.

(Numbers added for emphasis.)

Here are Hutton's original words, summarizing his theory (relevant portion cited):

Smoking Gun #1:

" **Not only are no powers to be employed that are not natural to the globe** ," ( **i.e., NO SUPERNATURAL)**

" no action to be admitted of except those of which we know the principle, and no extraordinary events to be alleged in order to explain a common appearance,

"the powers of nature are not to be employed in order to destroy the very object of those powers; ", **(i.e., NO GREAT FLOOD** as described by both this and the text that comes next)

"we are not to make nature act in violation to that order which we actually observe, and in subversion of that end which is to be perceived in the system of created things. In whatever manner, therefore, we are to employ the great agents, fire and water, for producing those things which appear, it ought to be in such a way as is consistent with the propagation of plants and life of animals upon the surface of the Earth. Chaos and confusion are not to be introduced into the order of nature, because certain things appear to our partial views as being in some disorder. Nor are we to proceed in feigning causes, when those seem insufficient which occur in our experience."

We have highlighted Hutton's statement and compared it to the prophecy in 2 Peter to show you what is going on. Uniformitarianism was _not_ a breakthrough in science, as was the Scientific Method. It was simply a _deliberate denial_ of Supernatural Creation and of the Genesis Flood. By saying, "Not only are no powers to be employed that are _not natural_ to the globe", Hutton was saying he would _not allow any_ supernatural explanation when explaining the beginning of the Earth. He was not _proving_ that the Earth wasn't created supernaturally, he was just refusing to consider it!

He also said, later in the text, "in whatever manner" to specify _that he and his followers would_ _reinterpret evidence_ _as needed_ _to avoid giving credit to_ _Supernatural Creation and the Flood._ No accommodation or compromise with the Biblical view was to be permitted. This is the point at which this movement entered attack mode. It continues in that mode today, though I suspect many geologists are unaware of the effort into which they've been duped. If I hadn't studied the origins of this work for myself, I probably would have remained a uniformitarian as well! _Any evidence supporting either Supernatural Creation or the Genesis Flood would be reinterpreted, and this rule was made absolute!_

This was not the search for truth! This was not science! This was a deliberate attack on the Bible as historical record. It refused to even consider that God _might have_ created the Earth and that the Genesis Flood _might have_ produced the fossil record! An objective search for truth and an objective practice of science would at least _consider_ the possibilities of Supernatural Creation and the Genesis Flood, but uniformitarianism prohibited this. _It allowed and still allows_ _anything but_ _Supernatural Creation and the Genesis Flood and it_ _specifically prohibits_ _support for these two events! Any evidence supporting these two events is always and absolutely reinterpreted. No compromise is permitted!_

So how is our geology supposed to find the truth when it has specifically prohibited the truth from consideration? The truth. The whole truth. Anything _but_ the truth is permitted. "In whatever manner, therefore" to _avoid_ the truth is Hutton's commandment. This is the dirty little secret behind modern, uniformitarian geology.

There is more...

Smoking Gun #2:

We come back, now, to Charles Lyell.

"But what about Hutton?", you ask.

" _He's_ the "Father of Modern Geology".

Correct.

"Then why is Lyell important?"

Because Hutton's ideas were not generally accepted in his day. He and those like him were considered radicals. Lyell, as a lawyer, knew how to _persuade_ people to abandon their former beliefs and start in the new direction. You probably know the name of one of his converts, who read Lyell's book while sailing on the HMS Beagle: Charles Darwin. No one would believe evolution had occurred in six thousand years. Lyell knew that. He also knew that he himself could not be the source of _both_ arguments: "long ages" _and_ evolution. That would be too suspicious. So he befriended Darwin and urged him to publish his book before others published theirs.

But wait a minute! What about radiometric dating? Doesn't that _prove_ that the Earth is billions of years old?

Many believe that such things as radiometric dating have provided independent, objective measurements for the age of the Earth. _They haven't!_ The age of the Earth as measured from various uniformitarian methods ranges anywhere from a comical fifty years, to near infinity! (See the table at the end of this chapter for examples.) Yet it is only the methods that imply long ages that are included in textbooks. So the public is given a false sense of security in evidences for great ages of the Earth. This is the legacy of Hutton and his supporters: the Biblical record of Creation and the Flood will be eliminated! They will be replaced "in whatever manner" is necessary!

Rocks created in the 1980's at Mt. St. Helens have been dated at millions of years by radiometric methods! Folks, use the Scientific Method! _Throw out radiometric dating, as demanded by the Scientific Method, since radiometric dating has been proven to produce false dates!_ Why do we claim to honor the Scientific Method if we aren't even going to use it? Remember what the method said: that if even just _one_ test of a theory failed, the theory itself was proven false. No retests. No excuses. One false result was all that was needed! The radiometric tests of rocks whose creation was witnessed by people less than 40 years ago _are generating false results of millions of years!_ _So why do some scientists ignore such results and pretend that the radiometric method is still reliable?_ When did the letters "PhD" become a license to bypass the Scientific Method?

Note how world-famous evolutionist Stephen Gould states it:

Gould explained Hutton's view of uniformity of rate; mountain ranges or grand canyons are built by accumulation of near insensible changes added up through vast time. Some major events such as floods, earthquakes, and eruptions, do occur. But these catastrophes are strictly local. They neither occurred in the past, nor shall happen in the future, at any greater frequency or extent than they display at present. In particular, the whole Earth is never convulsed at once.

Gould, Stephen J (1987). _Times Arrow, Times Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 120–121

The statement "In particular, the whole Earth is never convulsed at once." is a specific, deliberate denial of the Genesis worldwide Flood, which is exactly what 2 Peter prophesied. Note also how another writer states that uniformitarianism was not a law, but a "principle":

"Strict uniformitarianism may often be a guarantee against pseudo-scientific phantasies and loose conjectures, but it makes one easily forget that the principle of uniformity is not a law, not a rule established after comparison of facts, but a methodological principle, preceding the observation of facts . . . It is the logical principle of parsimony of causes and of economy of scientific notions. By explaining past changes by analogy with present phenomena, a limit is set to conjecture, for there is only one way in which two things are equal, but there are an infinity of ways in which they could be supposed different."

Hooykaas, R. 1963. _The principle of uniformity in geology, biology, and theology_ , 2nd impression. London: E.J. Brill. p. 38

Note how this presentation is at war with the Bible! Remember that Hutton's statement forbade use of the Supernatural and the Flood. So "using uniformitarianism" meant using _anything_ _but_ the Bible. So when this writer, in 1963, says, "Strict uniformitarianism may often be a _guarantee_ against pseudo-scientific phantasies", he is really saying that the Bible _is_ pseudo-scientific fantasy, for that is the version of history that uniformitarianism specifically prohibits! The Biblical version is the only version that uniformitarianism _guarantees_ will not be used! Remember that Hutton's phrase, "In whatever manner..." made avoidance of the Biblical view a _commandment_!

Note also that the 1963 writer admitted that uniformitarianism was _"not a law"_ , but was a principle _"preceding the observation of facts"_. I always thought this was called _prejudice_!

Gould simplified the issue, noting that his "uniformity of process" was also an assumption: "As such, it is another a priori methodological assumption shared by all scientists and not a statement about the empirical world."

Gould, S. J. 1984. _Toward the vindication of punctuational change in catastrophes and Earth history. In Catastrophes and Earth History_ , eds. W. A. Berggren and J. A. Van Couvering, p. 11. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Notice the use of the phrase "a priori" in this last comment. Here's a definition of the phrase "a priori" from the Web:

"reasoning from causes to effects; deductive; logically independent of experience; not derived from experience; assumed without investigation. **From the Latin, "from what is before"; hence, "as far as one knows".**

Why is this important? Because that's the same description given in the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:4

"...everything continues as it did from the beginning of creation." (ISV)

or

"From before the times of our ancestors, everything has remained the same since the world was first created." (NLT)

Compare these to the definition of "a priori"

From the Latin, "from what is before"; hence, "as far as one knows".

Gould explains further:

"The methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. 'You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around.' You first _assume_ these propositions and 'then you go to the out crop of rock.'"

Gould, Stephen J (1987). _Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 120.

Again, another author describes the situation long before the modern debate between creationism and evolutionism became heated:

"Uniformity is an _unprovable_ postulate justified, or indeed required, on two grounds. First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. Second, only with this postulate is a rational interpretation of history possible, and we are justified in seeking—as scientists we must seek—such a rational interpretation."

Simpson, G. G. 1963. Historical science. In Fabric of geology, ed. C. C. Albritton, Jr., pp. 24–48. Stanford, California: Freeman, Cooper, and Company

The implication of this statement is obvious. "First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it." What an outrageous remark! The Bible obviously disagrees with it! The Bible states that the world was Supernaturally Created and that a worldwide Flood destroyed and reshaped the early Earth! So this writer is denying _totally and completely_ the reliability of the Biblical record as history.

He also considers the Biblical record not _rational_ , because it offers a history which differs from what these people want it to be. Even if evidence for the Biblical record is found, it will not be considered. (We will cite such examples in a moment.)

Again, note the use of the statement in this 1963 text:

"First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. "

And the prophecy in 2 Peter 3:4 :

"They will say, 'Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.'" (NIV)

Now that we've studied Hutton's original statement and have reviewed some of the bias present in statements by his proponents, let's take a closer look at some of the phrasing used in the previous quote from the American Museum of Natural History website. You can read the statement in its entirety, cited earlier. The particular phrase we want to look at here is the one that says, "(Hutton's) ideas and approach to studying the Earth established geology as a _proper science_."

Now that you've had some practice analyzing other statements, do you see the glaring fault with this one? "Proper science"? Geology had been studied _before_ Hutton. In fact, Nicolas Steno, the "Father of Stratigraphy" (the study of the layering of the Earth's surface), had developed the science as a study of Flood evidence. Wasn't Steno's work "proper science"?

The museum statement implies that geology was _not_ properly studied before Hutton. Before Hutton, it was studied as the "Mosaic Geology". This version of Earth History accepted the Biblical Creation and the Genesis Flood as true history. It recognized the worldwide fossil record as evidence of the worldwide Flood. Many of the founding fathers of modern science actually held this view. Did holding that view prevent them from performing good scientific inquiry? Of course not! In fact, it helped them, for they were _looking_ for reason and logic, by believing they were studying the works of a reasonable and logical God! And get results they did!

Yet the museum discounts all of this and says that only with Hutton did the "proper science" of geology begin. Do you see that stating it that way is enmity with the Bible? Where is God supposed to fit into that scheme of things? Nowhere! How can such a system allow for _any_ miracles? It can't. It doesn't! Hutton's view was an attempt to _destroy_ the Biblical view of Earth history. It did not allow for accommodation of Creation and the Flood _in any way_. The museum's admiration of Hutton in no qualifying terms is a statement of allegiance to that view! If they see evidence for God's working in history, _they will deliberately reinterpret it._ _Such people are not searching for truth_. _They are working to hide it!_ "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22, KJV)

Actualism

It is important for this discussion to also note that sometimes claims are made that "we no longer follow uniformitarianism", or that "we've modified the views of uniformitarianism so that they are now scientific". Such modified views sometimes go by the name of "actualism". This is a smokescreen!

In every case, _anything_ is permitted as part of geological history _except_ Special Creation and the Flood. Asteroids killing the dinosaurs, limited floods, earthquakes, are all part of these scenarios. All of them, consistently, avoid Special Creation and the Flood, which is exactly what James Hutton commanded! "In whatever manner therefore", were his words, and those "modifying" uniformitarianism are, by such modifications, fulfilling its command! _Do not be distracted by claims that "new scientific methods" have superseded uniformitarianism. They are, in fact, fulfilling its first commandment: "In whatever manner, therefore..."!_

 Example 1:

"Most scientists argue that uniformitarianism should be kept in its proper historical perspective in the future, and that a more specific term like actualism might supplant uniformitarianism in places where the word is meant to convey strictly the modern concept of uniformity of causes."

Example 2:

"Thus the current scientific consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants. In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions. This is also known as the principle of actualism (geology), which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action. The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology."

 Example 3:

"Evidence of catastrophic events such (as) asteroid impacts on Earth has led geologists to abandon the doctrine of uniformitarianism, which holds that all of the geologic past could be explained in terms of currently observable processes, in favor of actualism."

Earlier in the same article, this source states:

"Scientific interpretation of Earth's history requires an understanding of currently operating geologic processes. According to the doctrine of actualism, most geologic processes operating today are similar to those that operated in the past. The rates at which the processes occur, however, may be different."

"In addition to providing a scientific basis for understanding the evolution of Earth over time, historical geology provides important information about ancient climate changes, , and earthquakes that can be used to anticipate the sizes and frequencies of future events."

The punch-line to this is that historical geology is claimed as the "scientific basis" for evolution. _Yet historical geology is not based on science, but on anti-Biblical prejudice!_ That's why when someone proposes the Genesis record as history, the cultural result is almost universally _scoffing_ , rather than serious consideration. We have trained our culture to scoff at the concept that the Biblical record could possibly be true, so that no one will look into it in any depth.

So what basis does evolution have for vast time spans? Prejudice! They have _deliberately rejected_ that the Earth was created and they have _deliberately rejected_ that there was a Genesis Flood. And yet there remains a vast, worldwide fossil record of it! By deliberately denying these two, specific events, they are actually fulfilling the very prophecy of, and thereby helping to confirm, the very book they are trying to disprove!

It is interesting to note that the same Prentice-Hall textbook cited earlier had a note on page one, which read:

"The highest mountains are built of material that once lay beneath the oceans. Fossil remains of animals that swarmed the seas 0.5 billion years ago are now dug from lofty crags. Every continent is partially covered with sediments that were once laid down on the ocean floor, evidence of an intermittent rising and settling of the Earth's surface."

Why are such sediments and fossils "evidence of an intermittent rising and settling of the Earth's surface"? That sounds so gentle! Why are they not evidence of the Flood? They are indeed evidence of the Flood, deliberately ignored. These texts will tolerate only naturalism, and will not even allow for supernaturalism. They allow no place for God, even if evidence exists for His working in history, such as this evidence cited on page one of the geology book!

If this topic is new to you, I'll add one more point to round out the issue. The Earth cannot (barring a miracle) be flooded as it is now. It has also been given a promise that it wouldn't be! The mountains are too high! The ocean basins are too deep! Many people scoff at the idea that the Genesis Flood was literal, because they recognize that the Earth of today cannot be flooded like this.

But the current shape of the surface of the Earth is not the shape of the surface before it was Flooded. Notice, carefully, what 2 Peter said: "the world _that then was_ , being overflowed with water, perished". "That then was" is the key phrase. The surface of the Earth before the Flood is not the same as the surface of the Earth after the Flood. The surface before the flood apparently had lower mountains, if any mountains, and shallower ocean basins, if it had any ocean basins at all. We don't know what that surface looked like, because it's long gone. But the Bible states specifically that " the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished". Do not judge the ability of the Earth to flood completely by the surface of the _present_ Earth. It was the surface _before_ that Flooded. Mountain building, ocean basins, and the worldwide fossil record are the _results_ of the Flood. Yes, the mountains are too high _now._ But they weren't too high _then!_

 Here is an interesting side point:

Smoking gun #3:

"Most Christians fail to realize that if there was a global Flood, it would rip up many of the previous rock layers and redeposit them elsewhere, destroying the previous fragile contents. This would destroy any evidence of alleged millions of years anyway. So the rock layers can theoretically represent the evidence of either millions of years or a global Flood, but not both. Sadly, by about 1840 even most of the Church had accepted the dogmatic claims of the secular geologists and rejected the global Flood and the biblical age of the Earth."

Smoking gun #4:

Why a Fossil Record of Millions of Years destroys the Gospel

Romans 5:12 begins:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin,

and in this way death came to all men,..."

Sin was the cause of death entering the world. This chapter of Romans says that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and that then death followed. The Gospel says that Jesus died to take away the root cause of death – our sin. If the fossil record were to represent millions of years, then it would represent millions of years of death before sin. If death were already in the world, then sin didn't bring it in and Jesus died for the wrong reason. So once again, the concept of millions of years of fossils, which was developed by enemies of Christianity specifically to destroy the Mosaic Geology, is revealed as also an attempt to destroy the Gospel message. Christians must understand what is going on in this issue. The fossil record _is_ the record of the Flood. Instead of standing _against_ the historical record of the Bible, for which purpose its enemies try to reinterpret it, it stands as testimony _to_ the Flood.

It is worthy to note the personal bias, admitted by some, on the other side. Richard Dawkins has been famous for his colorful criticisms of Christianity, but probably states best the true emotions behind uniformitarianism:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."  
— Richard Dawkins(The God Delusion)

I am thankful, at least, that Mr. Dawkins was willing to be frank and open about his feelings. It seems rare that we get such an clear admission from people who promote evolution.

And just to round out this discussion, here is a table of ages of the Earth as determined by various uniformitarian methods. This table is portion of a much larger table, which appeared in "The Young Earth. _Acts & Facts_. 3 (8)", Morris, H. 1974.

.

**TABLE I**  
**Uniformitarian Estimates—Age of the Earth**  
(Unless otherwise noted, based on standard assumptions of closed systems, constant rates, and no initial daughter components.)

### REFERENCES

1. Henry M. Morris (Ed.), _Scientific Creationism for Public Schools_ (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1974).
Chapter 13 – The Fraud of Evolution

"For they had bartered the reality of God for what is unreal..."

Romans 1:25 Weymouth New Testament

There is a fraud being perpetrated in our schools today. It involves the Scientific Method, but not, perhaps, in the way you think. The Scientific Method is a wonderful tool. For those who need a refresher, the steps of the method are basically as follows:

Observation

Hypothesis

Theory

Experiment/Testing

Formulation of a Scientific Law

First, you make observations about something. Next you formulate a hypothesis - an educated guess - about why the "thing" happens. Then you propose a theory. This represents a formal, _testable_ statement based on the hypothesis. Next comes the fun part: you test the heck out of the theory to try to disprove it. You test it hundreds of times; thousands of times. If the theory fails any one of these tests, the process ends there and the theory is toast. Only if the theory never once fails any single test does it pass on to become a Scientific "Law".

The whole point of the Scientific Method is to weed out unproven speculation. Take, for example, the old belief that something bad would happen if a black cat crossed your path. Without the Scientific Method, or something like it, people might be left to speculate endlessly on whether or not black cats could cause mischief this way. (Remember the Dark Ages?)

To apply the method to the cat problem, you would first form a theory, such as, "Something bad will happen to me if a black cat crosses my path." Of course, some time frame is needed to make the theory testable. We could propose "within a million years afterward", but there would be no way to test the theory, since we could not wait millions of years to see the results of each test. "Anytime during my lifetime thereafter" could only be tested once. We'll need to run many tests. "Within twenty-four hours" makes the theory testable once a day.

So we now have something of a crude theory: "Something bad will happen to me within twenty-four hours after a black cat crosses my path." What do we do now? We test the heck out of it. We go to the local pet store, purchase every black cat they have, and put the theory to the test. We let a black cat cross our path. Then we wait twenty-four hours to see if something bad happens. (Lab coats are optional.)

The _good_ news is that if nothing bad happens to us within twenty-four hours, the theory is immediately scrapped and we can go home. The Scientific Method has done its job: it has judged the theory a failure, due to its failing one test. The _bad_ news is that if something bad _does_ happen to us, we have to try the experiment again. And if something bad happens after the second test, we have to keep going. We have to keep trying and keep suffering, over and over again, with lots of cats and lots of paths to see if we can find just _one single occurrence_ in which something bad _does not_ happen to us afterward. Suffering for Science!

Even if we end up black and blue all over from bad things happening to us, that's not the end of it. What we're looking for is one case, any case, in which something bad does not happen. And we have to keep trying many, many times, - hundreds and thousands of times - before we conclude that our theory is valid. Even if we actually reach the point of trying the test thousands of times and something bad happens each time, we never actually proclaim the theory as "fact". That is, we _never_ come to the point where we say, "It's a FACT that if a black cat crosses your path, something bad will happen to you!".

Why can't we ever proclaim it a "fact"? Because there's always the possibility that somewhere, someday, someone will have a black cat cross their path and nothing bad will happen. At that point, on that day, our hard-earned theory will crumble to dust and be declared "False". So out of respect for the possibility that someday, somewhere, somebody may actually disprove our theory, we can only ever state that our theory may be proclaimed a "Scientific _Law_ "; never a "Scientific _Fact_ ".

Gravity works. Always. We call it the "Law of Gravity". But someday, somewhere, somebody might find that there's one case where it doesn't work. There, on that day, our wonderful Law of Gravity will be disproven, or at least have to be modified and retested.

That's the whole point to the Scientific Method. It can never actually verify _truth_ , but it can show what is not true. Anything that survives its brutal testing regimen may be proclaimed "tentative truth", but that's as far as it goes. All it takes is _one testing failure_ at anytime, anywhere to remove the designation "Scientific Law" and replace it with "Scientific Rubbish". One time, anywhere. That's why we call it, "the _Law_ of Gravity" and not the " _Fact_ of Gravity". Because someday, somewhere, it might actually be dis-proven!

So why is this important?

Here's why: Because in their early schooling, we teach our children, correctly, that the Scientific Method helped us launch a new, fruitful age of knowledge and reasoning. Skyscrapers, the Hoover Dam, jet planes, rocketships, and even microwave ovens are some of the many fruits of applying the Scientific Method.

And then we commit fraud. We present _Evolution_ as science.

You see, the Scientific Method does not apply to Evolution. They say that the fossil record was formed over hundreds of millions of years. Fine! Prove it! Wait hundreds of millions of years and see if a fossil record forms! Then do it again, and again, and again, hundreds and thousands of times. If it forms each and every time that we wait hundreds of millions of years, then and only then does it qualify as "Scientific Law" according to the Scientific Method. If we cannot wait even one set of "hundreds of millions of years", then the proposition is untestable and it does not even qualify as scientific theory! Modern scientific theories must be testable! So the problem is that we teach our children that the Scientific Method is the basis for modern science and then teach as science Evolution, whose claim of millions of years is untestable. FRAUD!

But, isn't Evolution needed as the backbone of modern Biology? No.

How can we study biology without Evolution? Easy. Look at cells. Study their parts. See how they work. Use the Scientific Method on these things, because it works beautifully on these things. These things are testable by the Scientific method.

So what are we left with? Well, we still have our understanding of cell biology, which is testable by the Scientific Method. We still have our understanding of proteins, DNA, meiosis, and mitosis (anybody remember which is which?). We still have pretty much biology as it is today.

What do we lose? We give up claiming that "phylogenetic trees" represent science. These are the supposed "family trees", which show single cells at the bottom and us at the top. We also give up claims that the fossil record has been proven to have been laid down over hundreds of millions of years. We can still offer such claims as speculation, or even as models, but not as "modern science". Modern science must be testable.

We can still display an arrangement of creatures any way we wish. But that's just the point: we're just showing an arrangement of creatures; nothing else. These arrangements would be better described as "proposed models".

Here's an analogy. Take a jar full of coins and spread them out on a table. Now arrange them by size: smallest to largest. Now pretend you're teaching a class. Tell the class that the coins evolved from smallest to largest. The class can see the progression, right?

Now shuffle the coins. Then sort them out by composition. Put the most copper-filled one first and the most silver-filled one last. Sort the ones in between according to how much copper and silver they have. Stand back and look at the arrangement. Tell your class to look at the progression: primitive copper-filled coins gradually changed into advanced silver coins. Can they see the progression?

Now shuffle the coins again. Then sort them out by the dates stamped on them. Put the oldest dates first and the newest dates last. This time, tell the class that this is _not_ a progression. _Warn_ them that some people _believe_ in this chronological arrangement, but that _such beliefs are silly_ , for everyone knows that the dates printed on the coins are mythical dates and not to be trusted.

This is our situation. Our Creator has given us something of a fairly detailed set of documents - the Bible - on the origin of all things, including the fossil record. It is like having dates stamped on coins. The Creator has given us testimony of when these things were made. Our culture has every right to _test_ the evidence. The Bereans in the New Testament book of Acts were "more noble" for doing just that: testing and checking the scriptures to see "whether these things (the Gospel being preached to them) were so".

But our culture isn't doing even that. It has been persuaded by people who were _enemies_ of the Gospel to _not even consider_ the possibility that the Genesis record is true. Our schools teach our children to see the fossil record as indicative of millions of years – with _no Flood_ , instead of seeing it as the biggest proof _of_ the Flood. The coins are stamped for a reason. The record left there by their makers can be trusted. So it is with our world! _The sediments stamped with fossils, that lie all over the world, are concrete, touchable evidence of the Flood, just like the dates stamped on the coins._

In English class, we are taught the method of comparison/contrast. We are taught that it is a wonderful way to study and consider issues. We are made to practice the method of comparison/contrast in essays. Comparison/contrast is indeed a valuable tool. But after lauding it, we turn right around and _forbid_ its use in regards to Evolution. This is just as bad as teaching the value of the Scientific Method and then throwing it out the window and presenting untestable epochs as science.

Put the two models, creation and evolution, side by side and do a comparison/contrast. Let the students _think_ about the arguments and evidence for each. Doing _that_ will make them better trained to think for themselves throughout life. As it is, all they are trained to do now is to recite pre-arranged arguments and scoff at the truth. This must change.
Chapter 14 – The Word Game of Evolution

"And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so. "

Genesis 1:24 New International Version

Remember old war movies where white smoke hid movement on the battleground? You couldn't see through it, so you didn't know what was happening behind it. Fog's pretty much the same way. Something similar is being used today by evolutionists to cloud the Creation/Evolution debate. It's an important point, so we'll cover it here.

Let's start the point as many evolutionists would. It starts with a statement like, "Of course evolution is observable! It's happening every day! Bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics! Galapagos finches are growing more suitable beaks! Look at the dogs and cats in your neighborhood. They give birth to pups and kittens of all different sorts: different colors, different fur length, and so on. We see evolution around us all the time!"

Bunk!

What you _see_ in all of these cases is variation; not evolution. Variation is the difference between parents and offspring. Cats give birth to different color cats. Dogs give birth to different color dogs. For centuries, breeders in Europe tried to outdo each other in generating animals with the most magnificent features. The smallest horse. The largest horse. The dog with the longest snout. And so on and so on.

To a point the breeders were able to succeed. But only to a point. The offspring were always of the same kind as the parents. Dogs remained dogs. Cats remained cats. Horses remained horses.

Some would call the changes between parent and offspring, "microevolution", but "variation" is a better word for it, for it better describes what's really going on. You may have studied Mendel's Laws of Heredity in school. These help describe how variation occurs. Recessive genes/dominant genes. Remember?

The point is that the gene pools from the parents are shuffled to make each baby and the result can be any combination within the genes contributed to the pool. But that's where it ends. New genes are not created. It's just a shuffling of whatever genes are already present. So the whole process is really one of conservation, because the best you can do is to break even. You never end up with more than what went in.

But aren't antibiotic-resistant bacteria proof that new genes can evolve?

No. The case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been notoriously misrepresented to the public. That's the polite way of saying what's going on. The bacteria are _not_ generating _new_ genes as many stories imply. They are simply the recessive "runts" that bring unpopular genes to the fore when their bigger, better brothers and sisters are killed off by antibiotics. These runts do have a measure of resistance to antibiotics. But that's because that resistance was always available within certain runt-genes within the bigger gene pool. These runts didn't show up before antibiotics were used, because they are just that: runts. They have a terrible time competing in nature as it is. Under normal conditions, they wouldn't survive against their competition. But alter the environment with antibiotics and you end up _killing off_ their competition: their stronger siblings. Then, because of this special chance given to them, they can have a chance to reproduce in greater numbers than before. If this artificial environment is maintained, they may continue to reproduce and grow into larger numbers.

Yet, these bacteria have only genetic information that was always there anyway. And if conditions return to normal, their bigger siblings will return and once again out-compete them. The runts will die off and that will be that.

I'm short. Put me in a basketball game and I'd never score points. But put real basketball players - all probably well over six feet tall - and me, er, at something less than that, up against a wall. Bring out a machine gun, called "The AK-ANTIBIOTIC". Set it to fire at just under six feet height. You know where I'm headed with this. I'd be the lone survivor. Now I could shoot hoops all day. And once every hour or so, I might actually score a point, because, frankly, I'm still not that good!

But under this scenario, I'd appear to be machine-gun proof. Stand me up against the wall again with another group and, how 'bout that! I'd survive again! I must be truly amazing!

Remove the machine gun (antibiotics), let the regular players return, and I'd be back to normal: scoring no points at all. THAT'S what's going on with the so-called "Super-Bugs". It's not fair to gloss over their true identity with the word "super" any more than that adjective should be used with me, in regards to my basketball abilities. (I can live with that.)

There is a good, basic example of this situation as it applies to specific bacteria, available in an article on the  Internet. The article discusses the example of bacteria present in anthrax. There was an anthrax scare after September 11, 2001. The antibiotic named Ciprofloxacin (nicknamed, "Cipro") was used to treat these cases of anthrax infection. Cipro worked by binding to a protein named "gyrase" that the anthrax bacteria needed. The result of the binding decreased the ability of the bacteria to reproduce. With the bacteria subdued, the victim's own immune system had a better chance of killing off the remaining bacteria.

But some of the bacteria were runts: they couldn't build this protein correctly. _And the correctly built protein happened to be the target at which the antibiotic was aimed._ This was like trying to target all basketball players by aiming at six feet height, simply because _most_ basketball players are taller than six feet. _But_ _some basketball players are shorter than six feet!_ Similarly, the Cypro _didn't target_ the runt protein, so never affected the runt bacteria. The antibacterial "bullets" _never hit these bacteria_ , because the "bullets" didn't target the runt protein.

However, these runts suffered problems of their own due to the runt protein: they could not reproduce as quickly as their siblings under normal conditions. So the runts were not Superbugs. They were not _gaining new information_. They were not "learning" how to overcome the antibiotic. They simply didn't happen to have the target at which the antibiotic was aimed.

It's a similar story with the Galapagos finches. Parents produce offspring, for example, with beaks different than their own. So far, so good. This is normal. It's called, "variation". But sometimes the offspring _cannot_ produce any more beaks like their parents. Evolutionists immediately declare them to be a new species! So what's going on here?

It's simple. With variation, sometimes you lose genes. Remember that I said the best you could do was to break even - to pass on a complete set of genes? Well guess what happens when you pass on less than that? You get an incomplete set of genes! Pair a happy couple in which neither has the missing genes and none of the offspring will have them either! This is how you get offspring which can no longer produce something like their parents. The beaks were generated by normal variation from a larger gene pool. The "new species" claimed by evolutionists are nothing more than offspring that can no longer generate certain genes from the previous, larger gene pool. They can never quite get back to what they had. They have not invented something new. They do not have more genetic information; they now have less!

So the cases of the "super-bug" bacteria and the Galapagos finches are not due to evolution. They are due to normal variation. Neither case produces something new.

Variation does occur. Conservation occurs as well. But the evolution that people claim as proven is not these. That "evolution" is termed, "MacroEvolution": the transmutation of one kind into another kind. A dog into a cat, for example. We've never seen this. The boundary is always maintained around the kind.

This raises a very interesting point. If God hadn't added the phrase "after its kind", in Genesis One, there wouldn't be a problem. But He did. So there's a problem. The "problem" is that this is exactly how things have always been reproducing: exactly as Genesis One says they must.

But what if evolution were true? What if early man was primitive? What if ape-men really existed? Well then, that makes things even more interesting. How did a primitive man, who supposedly wrote this phrase, "after their kind" in a primitive book called Genesis, write an accurate definition that has confounded attempts to disprove it by the best and brightest of our day?

Evolutionary scientists have been desperately trying for over a century to break the "after its own kind" rule. None have succeeded. Not one! So how did this supposedly primitive author hit such a technically correct bulls-eye with this phrasing? If the author were primitive, he or she couldn't have explored the whole earth first, before committing the phrase to history, to make certain that the phrasing was correct everywhere and in all cases. And yet the phrase is correct everywhere and in all cases. This result does not argue for a primitive author, but for an advanced one.

Look at it the opposite way. If the Genesis text had said, "Anything after any kind.", that would have been easy to prove primitive, because we have _never seen_ creatures bring forth any other way than "after their own kind". So the writer would have been mistaken about how things reproduce, but we'd forgive him, for how could he know any better?

But that's not what happened. Whoever wrote the verse in Genesis hit a bulls-eye. "After its kind" is exactly how it works. Exactly how it's always worked. Never been disproven. Never been broken. Many, many have tried hard to break this rule and have failed. The rule stands.

Conclusion: Don't let evolutionists steal the word variation and try to trick you into thinking that it's proof of evolution. Yes, we see variation all the time. No one has ever seen evolution!
Chapter 15 - Immanuel

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

John 1:14 King James Version

How does God become man? How does the infinite, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient God become fully human?

Easy. God is Spirit. So are you. The real you is a spirit connected to a body. The body's temporary. God said so. It's made from things that are made from words. God said so. The matter it's made of is temporary. God said so. The _real_ you is the spirit connected to the body. So how _big_ of a spirit can He fit into a body? Spirits, like thoughts, aren't defined by size.

Take a blank DVD. Weigh it. Let's suppose it weighs sixteen grams. Now store five _gigabytes_ of information on it. (Any typical two hour movie written to the disk should accomplish this.) Then weigh it again. Surprise! It still weighs sixteen grams. _All that information_ is now on it and it hasn't increased the weight at all. That's right! Information, like thoughts, like spirits, can be enormous and still weigh _nothing!_ So can you hook the infinite, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient God to a body? Trick question... _you_ can't. He can!

So how much did God experience human life as Jesus on earth? Well...how much do _you_ experience it? Do _you_ feel pain when you step on a nail? Sure you do. It's intense! He felt nails, too. Did He feel things less than we do? Why should He? You're a spirit connected to the inputs of a body. Do you feel things less than anybody else? Probably not. So why should _He_ feel things less. The connection to this body is quite intense... by design.

So was Jesus acting afraid of the crucifixion in the Garden of Gethsemane? I don't think so. I think He was afraid of something else. He never whimpered during the beatings, the floggings, the pounding of the nail-length thorns into his scalp, nor during the iron nails beaten through his hands and feet. Not a word. I don't think he was afraid of those. I'm sure they hurt, but He is tough.

What hurt most came later. We saw one side of it when He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" This was the first line of Psalm 22, which was written almost a thousand years before. Psalm 22 describes Jesus' feelings on the cross. It describes crucifixion centuries before it was invented.

We didn't see the _other_ side of that conversation as He did. I believe that was the point at which God poured out onto Jesus the sins of every human who ever lived and who ever would live. It was at that point that God poured out onto Jesus _your_ personal sins and _my_ personal sins. At _that_ point, _for the first time in all of eternity, God the Father had to turn His face away from God the Son._ God cannot look upon sin. That is ultimate death: separation from God. Completely alone. Does God know what it's like to be lonely? _Now_ He does!

This was something Jesus and the Father had never before experienced. They didn't want to experience it. They had always been together in intimate communion. As John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word "with" in that verse, in the Greek original is _"pros"_ which means "toward". It implies face to face. It implies full agreement. It implies the most perfect, happiest, most intimate and trusting relationship.

That's what Jesus had to give up to redeem us. That's what God had to experience to redeem us. Oh, the nails hurt. And the flesh ripped off His back hurt. And the friends abandoning Him hurt. And the thorns stuck through His scalp hurt. And the mocking _to_ His face and the spitting _in_ His face hurt. But I believe what hurt more than those things was the new experience which He would know now and from this point onward: What it feels like to be separated from God.

We can try to imagine what that first-time experience would be like, but none of us really knows. That's because we've _always_ been separated from God, having been born into something like a cesspool of sin which is this world. So when we get saved, we get the beginning of a new life and sometimes a bit of the new joy that starts to come now and which will come much more later. Perhaps when we know that joy fully, when we have senses powerful enough to fully understand that joy, perhaps then we will be able to look back and understand more of what God gave up that day to redeem us.

Did God become fully human? Probably more than any of us ever did!
Conclusion

_"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. "_ 2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version

Judge The Programming Model by Scripture.

Sad News and Good News

First, the sad news. Remember Ethan back at the mountain? Don't worry, Ethan's fine. But the "Old Man"...not so much. The rock face, known for some time to be susceptible to falling, finally gave way and crumbled a number of years ago. Interestingly, there has since been something of a movement to recreate the profile in one form or another. You are welcome to join in that discussion if you wish.

Ethan's walk to the profile simply made a nice introductory analogy to the walk you've just taken, if you've read through these chapters and, especially, if this material is new to you. We made sure to include Ethan's use of his five senses as an introduction to the concept of how we commonly discern reality. (You can reread the introduction and count 'em, if you wish!)

How did Ethan discover the "Old Man of the Mountain"? First, he had to take a walk of faith! He had to take many steps to get to the position where he could see the "Old Man", who was always there and had not moved. Some of the steps were not easy, especially since his sole (pun) was worn from living in the world. Then he had to have the blinders taken off! He was guided to look upward, which would not have worked unless he didn't resist. He needed to see things from a particular perspective, which helped to make things that were already there more obvious.

That's the same way we've tried to present The Programming Model. If you're willing to follow the trail, and put away the filter the world puts over our eyes, you may recognize evidence of God's design all around you! The Programming Model shows us evidence of how a world _can_ be built by words, firmly held, _as we are now building worlds_. It's not so much seeing something new, but rather seeing things that were always there from a new perspective: by removing the blindfold that the world tricks us into wearing.

Ultimately, there is no way to know, unless He chooses to tell us, whether God has generated this Creation by _software_ or by _hardware_ ("hardware" meaning "directly calling materials into existence"). But whether He has built it as software – as thoughts firmly held - or out of materials called into existence, the _effects_ are the same. In both cases, God defines and sustains all things. In both cases, the existence of all things depends on His powerful word. In both cases, without this sustenance, all things cease to exist.

So the effects of a creation built by software _exactly match_ the effects of a creation built by hardware. This is an important point: that because the _effects_ of a creation built by software could generate exactly the same reaction in our senses as the reaction that self-existing materials generate, there would never be any way for us to tell whether or not material things exist as "hardware" rather than software. Once again, we are fully dependent on God to tell us the answer. This is not a bad thing, for we – more than we usually know or sometimes like to admit – are fully and completely dependent on Him for everything anyway! And He is thoroughly reliable in providing us whatever we need, though not necessarily everything we _want ,_ at all times.

The software version seems to fit the Biblical descriptions better than the hardware version, simply because the Biblical descriptions state that God _sustains_ and _upholds_ all things by His powerful word. This description exactly fits a creation by software. It does _not_ appear to fit a creation by self-existing materials, for if the materials exist independently of God, then there seems to be no reason that they would _need_ to be upheld by Him. Once again, perhaps we have simply misunderstood how reality exists, just as we were caught by surprise when Rutherford's team discovered that atoms were hollow, when we thought they were solid.

If you prefer the hardware view, remember that the grounds on which you're basing your decision have already been 99.9999999999999% removed! Remember what we discussed in chapter two? In that chapter, we reviewed how Ernest Rutherford's team found that atoms are 99.9999999999999% hollow. This means that matter occupies only 0.0000000000001%, on average, of the objects that we see around us, including the ground we stand on and the chairs we sit in. _If we saw things based on their true mass-volume, rather than based on the images that their designed interaction with light generates for us, we would not be able to see anything at all!_

It is the force fields that atoms generate that produce both the solidity that we _feel_ and the solidity that we _see_. And it is the reaction in our senses which leads us to presume that objects around us exist in solid form. It is the same reaction which leads us to presume that matter self-exists and that it cannot be created nor destroyed. Perhaps that is why God has allowed us to discern, with our tools, that objects are "barely there", mass-wise. As Chief Designer, He did not have to do this. As we've previously discussed, He could have designed atoms fully solid, _but then we never would have found this clue that our reality is being generated for us!_

Not only does God have the sole "physical" ability to create and recreate our reality, but He has also earned the _moral right_ to do it, by paying the price to redeem it that He Himself set! The thorns that were beaten into His head, by men who had no idea they were fulfilling prophecy, honored the penalty that He Himself set in Genesis chapter three: that the ground would bear thistles and thorns and that death would be the final result. He bore the judgment of Genesis 3, as illustrated by bearing the crown of thorns on His head as He died.

It was our decision to eat from the forbidden tree that brought death upon us. Think of it as a "Cyanide Tree", for it produced a similar result. The original tree was called, "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". We call this a "Decision Tree" in information science. It is no coincidence that this is why God put this decision, available to us by free will, in the form of a tree. What better way to testify to us, in the Last Days, who ourselves use Decision Trees in designing our software worlds! He knew we would be using the tree concept as our object for illustrating consequences of decisions. So it stands as all the more testimony to us of what we've truly done. By scoffing at the historical existence of that decision tree, the world scoffs at both the responsibility for and consequences of the decision that we made there.

The punch-line was that we already knew good, because we knew God. So all that was left available to us was to know evil, which was what happened when we made the choice to eat from that tree. That's why it must also be a decision by us, at another tree – the tree on which He hung and died – to eat of it's fruit – of Him, to partake in His offer of redemption. One choice brought us death. Another choice brings us life.

The Bible describes the world very much caught by surprise in the last days, when God begins changing the fundamental rules and reclaiming both the world and, ultimately, the "heavens and the earth". So the Biblical descriptions seem to favor the software approach more than the hardware approach. If software is indeed the basis, then perhaps only our pride is hurt. Again, we misunderstood. But the solidity of all things remains the same: still fully solid and reliable for the present, but – as always – fully dependent on God for its sustenance.

In both cases, whether hardware or software, God sizes all things for interaction with all other things, according to a deliberate, infinitely well-thought-out plan. In both cases, we are called to pay attention to the _choices_ we make and the _God with whom we have a relationship_ , rather than to the _things_ created. It is the distraction of the things around us, through the tug of sin within us, which has always been our undoing. The things around us are meant to point God-ward, but too often we misdirect them self-ward.

Even though The Programming Model makes a good fit between descriptions in the Bible and software methods that we have learned, it would be _wrong_ to say that God _cannot_ call materials directly into existence in ways other than the software approach. To do so would be to make the same mistake as the naturalists: to claim that God _cannot_ do things that we cannot do ourselves.

It seems a bit ironic, moreover, that the software approach offers an almost "naturalist" explanation for origins, since _we_ can now create worlds by words, too. So one might suggest making the case that The Programming Model essentially _complies_ with Hutton's directives for uniformitarianism, since "nothing that is not natural to the globe" no longer excludes creation by words - that is, software. I mention this only out of a sense of humor, of course, for Hutton and his followers would have been terribly upset to find that they had missed such a big hole in the blinders they had prepared for us!

The software approach requires God to define the _limits_ to our abilities as well as to define the abilities themselves. So in the software approach, we still find ourselves more limited than God and unable to do all of the things that He does. We still must take Him at His Word, as a matter of faith, when accepting the things beyond us that He can do. We _know_ we can take Him at His Word, because of both the history we've had with Him and the relationship He maintains with us. He is more trust _worthy_ than even are we of ourselves. In many ways, He often saves us even _from_ ourselves.

Just as it would be _wrong_ to say that the hardware approach is impossible, simply because we _ourselves_ cannot do it, it would also be wrong to say that the software approach is _less_ real than the hardware approach. The software approach is _entirely_ definitional. _But the hardware approach is also definitional!_ The only difference is that the latter method uses _arrangements_ _of_ _materials_ to convey the definitions.

For example, we could experience what it is like to fashion a table out of wood by either method. A software based reality would specify the exact experiences we would receive while interacting with the wood. It would define the wood's density, scent, colors, and roughness, in infinite detail. But in the hardware based reality, _these same attributes and characteristics would be defined by the design of the materials_. So both methods would define for us what it is like to work with wood. In both versions, the _experience_ of "what it is like to work with wood" would have been previously conceived directly and completely by God. _There was no concept of either "wood", or what it was like to work with it, before God came up with the idea_. In both models, our _spirits_ would experience the same things. In both models, the wood would be _transitory_ : it would last only so long as God _willed_ it to last.

The contrast between the two methods is like the difference between using pure, massless thoughts to store information versus using physical, computer _bits_ to store information. Both methods work! Both methods can store the same information. And the information can contain definitions. It is the _definitions_ conveyed to us, whether by software or hardware, that determine our reality: the way we interact with objects, with each other, and with God.

So other than the step of _calling materials into existence,_ the two methods are identical. The software method is one we _can_ imitate, while the hardware method is one we _cannot_. Yet, even though we cannot imitate the unique hardware step, we can follow along, using the software-based model. So we can better understand the acts of forming Creation's definitions, even if the model misses the actual implementation by omitting this one step.

The Programming Model consists of definitions for all things, sustenance by God's maintaining His word, and the inability of materials to exist independently of God. The purposes of all things created are both to glorify God and to allow us to gain experience and perspective – to grow as individuals. "An interface" would be the correct, but cold, technical term for the reality we know. Whether formed by software or hardware, it is _still_ an interface: a way for us to interact. Whether the interface lasts for a day, for seven thousand years, or for an eternity is entirely up to God. We know that His final reality, the New Heavens and New Earth, _will_ last for eternity, for He has already given us that promise.

It is _wrong_ to think that because we are really spirit, that we lack the "true" ability to _do_ or to _be_ anything of substance. _The opposite is true_. We can _do_ and _be_ _anything,_ as long as we have God's approval and His help. The verse, "With God, _all_ things are possible.", clearly states this. Being a spirit means that God can create _any_ interface for us: _any_ ability; _any_ strength. Rather than implying _limits_ , this fact removes them.

Your spirit isn't defined by mass. Yet with the interface you currently have - your body - you know full well what it means to have mass (and sometimes, to have too much of it!). Your spirit isn't defined by locality. Yet your body allows you to experience this concept fully. Your spirit isn't defined by energy. Yet you know very well what it is like to both need and to gain energy. If your spirit _were_ defined by any of these things, _then_ it would be limited. Because it is independent of these things, God can design for it _any_ experience.

There is a simple parallel, again from computer technology. Years ago, our designs for interfaces between machines were much more limited than they are now. Parallel printer cables could only connect to one type of hardware: the type that had _exactly_ the same cable connection. Monitor cables were similarly limited: they could only connect to monitors that had exactly the same type of cable connection.

Now, we use USB connections. These can connect virtually _anything_ to _any other_ thing! The connection itself appears physically _simpler_ than the older ones: only four pins instead of dozens. Yet even though the physical complexity has decreased, the range of possibilities has vastly _increased_. This contrast should become even more evident as we move increasingly to wireless connections. As we make these changes, we find that "less physical" equals "more possible". It is the same with our concept of spirit. By not being _based_ in the space-mass-time realm, they are not _limited_ by the space-mass-time realm, although they can fully experience and enjoy the space-mass-time realm. It is actually very good news that, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God", for if we were always limited to that form, we would not be able to experience all of the _better_ things God has in store for us.

How will you judge what is real? By your senses? We've already discussed the limits of the ability of our senses to discern reality. By the permanence of this creation? Think again. Read Revelation 21 for a rebuttal to that. In the end, we know from Scripture that God is real and that the things He chooses to prepare for us as bodies and the environments in which they interact serve as our reality. How "real" will the new creation seem to us? Well, how "real" does _this_ reality seem to you? How "solid" will the new creation be? Well, how "solid" is this one? Is it solid enough for you, even though you know that atoms are hollow? (If you're not sure, you may gently bang your head against a wall as a reminder. Do so at your own risk, of course!)

So we are left with the model. Perhaps it is the way He has created things; perhaps not. Whether it _is_ or not, in a sense, doesn't particularly matter. (This is _not_ meant to minimize the _great fit_ that the model gives us to characteristics described by Scripture of the Creation around us. It _is_ meant to focus on the "so what?" aspect of the model's conclusions.) What matters is that the model provides a mechanism we can understand and follow for _how_ God does everything. By satisfying our curiosity for _how_ He does such things, we can focus more fully on the question of _why_ He does things.

There is another subtle, yet powerful benefit to using the model. Because our nature tends to view a software creation as transitory, the model portrays the impermanence of this world. Our goal is heaven. Our goal is a good, healthy, active, and fulfilling relationship with the One who both created us and died to redeem us; "To have life and to have it abundantly.", as He himself has told us. The perspective on life that flows from this model helps us to focus more on _these_ goals and less on the distractions of the present.

The software model allows us to better understand the _mechanics_ of God's creation. Although our creations exist on a much smaller scale than God's, they do allow us to experience omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence over our own worlds. Such experience leads us to ask, "Why has _God_ chosen to _limit_ His power, when – in our own worlds – we can exert maximum power at any time?"

God did indeed limit His power when dealing with Pharoah. He also limited Gabriel's power when He sent messages to Daniel. (Gabriel had to fight his way through enemy forces both to reach and to return from Daniel.) In our own creations, because we can direct power as great or as little as we choose, we can shape outcomes toward an "artistry of events", if we wish to convey concepts and meaning at multiple levels.

This is exactly what God has done. This is why, for example, He had Abraham head out to sacrifice his son in Genesis 22. No, God is _not_ a bloodthirsty ogre. Note the events as God orchestrated them: Isaac is referred to as Abraham's "only son, whom he loves", even though Abraham also had the son Ishmael. For the purposes here, the word "only" is important. Note that He directed them to take a three day journey. So in Abraham's mind, Isaac was dead to him for three days. (It wasn't until God intervened on the third day that Abraham received his son back, so to speak.)

If the events aren't obvious to you already, I'll jump to some of the punchlines. The location they trekked to was Calvary, or at least _very_ nearby. That's where _God's_ only Son was offered up by _His Father_ for us. Abraham and Isaac went with two others. Jesus was crucified with two others. Abraham was to sacrifice his son. God sacrificed His son _on the same spot_. Isaac was "dead" to Abraham for three days. Jesus was dead to the Father for three days. Isaac carried the wood on his back. So did Jesus. Isaac experienced a last minute substitution. So did Jesus: _our_ sins were put on Him as His sacrifice was made. Abraham named the place, "Jehovah Jireh" for, "in this place God will provide". And God certainly did provide, for us, on that spot.

Events, place names, actions, names listed in genealogies...all are orchestrated by God throughout scripture to accomplish His purpose. His purpose is simple: to convey the Gospel to us. He does it not only by the direct word, but also by the analogies, dramas, hints, foreshadowings, and the lives of everyone in the Bible. Nothing is wasted. Nothing is trivial.

The Programming Model illustrates how _we_ could hide such meanings within worlds we create. And we sometimes _do_ exactly such things within the software games that we create for entertainment. Because we can see clearly how great our power is over worlds we create through software, we can see clearly how great God's power is over His own Creation. Therefore, we look deeper within the Creation, just as Romans chapter one says (regarding God's divine qualities as evidenced through creation), to see how very deliberate and wonderful is His design. Recognizing the miracles of Jesus as miracles of identity is a result of this perspective, of taking off the blindfold.

This world _was_ created by words: by God's Word, firmly held, exactly as the Bible has always said. Our reality is what He has made for us. It depends on Him completely for its sustenance. Some things we see. Some things we don't see. That is His design. Driving easily through this reality is testimony both to His ability as Engineer and Architect. If this reality is real enough for you, how can the next one be any less?

This life is temporary. Everyone knows that, but how few act upon that knowledge! What comes after depends on the choice you make now. As you can see from The Programming Model, choices are pretty much the only things we can offer God. Everything else we do by His power! Romans 8:10-13 says it well: "'...The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,' that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, 'Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.' For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

We are not bodies with spirits attached. We are spirits with bodies attached. So do not let your body lead your spirit, but let your spirit lead your body. And let your spirit be led by God.

###

About the Author:

Jim Haines worked in construction while growing up, took civil engineering in college, but returned to his first love, computer programming, as a career. He received a B.S.C.E. in 1979 from Drexel University with coursework in structures and soils. He worked for a number of companies during his programming years, writing software ranging from video games, to business applications, and even system interfaces. It was this combination of experiences: structural theory from engineering and simulation and interface programming that gave him sensitivity to the possibilities of The Programming Model. If you have enjoyed this book and would be interested in reading more about implications of the model, post a comment at the Smashwords blog below. Thank you.

Smashwords author page.

Smashwords blog.
