NATURALISM – A DEAD PARADIGM: CELLS ARE PRODUCTS OF A MIND

Posted on by

A major error occurred when scientists decreed that only naturalistic explanations could be used to explain the origin of life and how it operates. Decades of molecular biology research have produced an extraordinary catalogue of cellular details, yet a coherent, unified explanation of how cells function as a whole is lacking.1 Rafelski and Theriot pointed out that2

“The living nature of the cell inherently means that we cannot make the same simplifying assumptions that we typically use for many other complex dynamical systems, and we cannot assume that we fully understand the nature of the laws that govern cell behavior.”

The naturalistic scientific community insists that only purely material, undirected chemical processes must account for the emergence of life. However, this focus on chemical reactions has sidetracked from the fundamental biological questions that needed to be answered. Cells are the foundation of life, and it is precisely their defining properties that require an explanation. They must autonomously grow, adapt, self-protect, self-repair, recycle components, manufacture their own hardware, and reproduce with astonishing fidelity across countless generations.

No collection of abiotic chemical reactions has ever been observed to bootstrap itself into this kind of integrated, purposeful system. More than 99% of reactions relevant to biological systems are catalyzed by tailor-designed genetically encoded protein catalysts. EcoCyc version 24.5 records 1,682 curated metabolic enzymes (those directly catalyzing small-molecule transformations) for the model bacterium E. coli K-12, plus 288 transporters catalyzing transport reactions. In addition, there are many nucleases, proteases, kinases, and other classes of enzyme. Without these enzymes the reactions would be too slow and inefficient. Details like these should have shown the disconnect between prebiotic chemical research and living systems.

Truman et al. addressed this misdirection by proposing a top-down computational paradigm: cells are best understood as integrated multiprocessing analogue computing devices. Daughter cells inherit cryptic computational logic that directs biochemical processes, anticipating future requirements with flexible responses.

Cellular design interpreted as analogue computing

Unlike digital computers, pure analogue processors do not require software code separate from the hardware; the physical construction is the programme. The implications for cells are profound. Cells operate through thousands of molecular Recognition Elements (REs) that can be viewed as sensors, which respond to continuous gradients of Specificity Factors (SPs), which are sometimes called ‘signals’. These REs function as programming variables—dynamic biological elements capable of initiating and regulating cascades of downstream processes. The outcomes depend on the magnitude, duration, and context of the SPs they detect. Truman et al. documented many examples of this principle, with SP effectors ranging from transcription factors and glucose to calcium ions and mechanical strain, each producing graded, continuous regulatory outputs. This analogue character is pervasive: it is observed in signal transduction pathways, metabolic feedback inhibition, cell cycle control, chromatin dynamics, developmental gradients, immune responses, etc.

Furthermore, the responsiveness of REs can be modified. Ligand attachments, chemical modifications (phosphorylation, methylation, glycosylation), cofactors, pH, and temperature all fine-tune the response to the same concentration gradient. This represents a qualitatively richer form of programming than anything available in digital systems.

The logic of cellular programming

Identifying cellular REs as programming variables is a key conceptual advance of this framework. In digital computing, variables are abstract locations in memory where values are stored and retrieved. In cells, REs are physically positioned at specific molecular locations—on DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates—where they respond to SPs. The logical operations are directly implemented physically: SP binding to RE constitutes the assignment of a value, and this assignment initiates downstream processing.

This relationship has properties that transcend ordinary chemical interaction. Cellular variables must be unambiguous, are used to communicate intention, can perform operations, and may recursively represent collections of other variables.

A further key insight is the distinction between the immediate goal and the major goal of a cellular variable. The immediate goal is the physical recognition event: a codon identifying the correct anticodon; a receptor, tyrosine kinase, recognizing its extracellular ligand; or a TATA-binding protein recognizing its eight-nucleotide promoter sequence. This physical recognition event is only the initiating step—Step 1. The major goal—Step 2—is the downstream functional outcome: protein synthesis, gene activation, chromatin remodelling, signal transduction cascade, etc. The entire downstream machinery is assembled in response to the RE–SP interaction. This just-in-time assembly and disassembly of processing hardware ensures efficient use of cellular resources.

Adaptor molecules and if–then logic

Cellular decision-making is implemented through a recursive, cascading logic in which each RE–SP interaction generates a new microenvironment that serves as a new RE for the next step. This is exemplified by adaptor molecules. The tRNA is a canonical single-adaptor molecule: one end identifies a specific mRNA codon while the other end carries the correct amino acid.

More commonly, cells implement logic through multi-component adaptor complexes, in which each recruited protein or RNA possesses both an RE for its upstream partner and an RE for the next component in the assembly chain. The concept of adaptor molecules and complexes is shown in figure 1. This recursive, stepwise logic describes many key cellular processes.

The power of the framework was demonstrated through many examples of REs, placed on DNA, RNA, and proteins. In every case, the RE possesses a distinctive recognition feature embedded within a supporting molecular housing, which optimizes binding, excludes false binding partners, and ensures the interaction is coupled to a specific downstream process. The engineering required to regulate a multitude of processes concurrently—in the same cellular volume, and without catastrophic interferences—is far beyond current human technologies.

Advantages of analogue design in cells

Four advantages of using analogue technologies in cells include:

  • Analogue regulation permits fine-tuned, graded responses, which avoid waste and optimize resource allocation.
  • Responding directly to concentration-gradients is simpler than discretizing gradients into discrete intervals and computing separate logic for each interval.
  • Analogue binding interactions—relying on multiple small non-covalent contributions (hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces, hydrophobic interactions, ionic bonds)— confer robustness to individual mutations. No single point change abruptly abolishes function; the system degrades gracefully.
  • The use of thousands of dedicated, simple, modular molecular machines—assembled just in time and dismantled when no longer needed—is far superior to a monolithic general-purpose processor. For example, up to 10 million ribosomes operate concurrently in human liver cells, while red blood cells have none; up to 100,000–200,000 spliceosomes are active in many cell types concurrently. The copy number of each machine can be regulated dynamically according to cell type, stage in the cell cycle, and immediate cellular needs. This modularity enables rapid scaling, precise replacement of defective components, and efficient recycling of molecular raw materials.

Implications for origins: design, not chemistry

The cumulative force of this framework carries direct implications for the origins debate. A cell is not merely a complex chemical system; it is an integrated, multiprocessing, self-manufacturing, self-repairing, self-reproducing collection of analogue computing devices (fig. 2).

Chemical systems, however complex, do not produce REs that encode intended outcomes unrelated to their own physical binding properties. They do not assemble just-in-time machinery. They do not regulate copy numbers of their own processing hardware. They do not implement recursive if–then logic across thousands of concurrent programmes. They do not pass all of this in a fully operational state to daughter systems, generation after generation.

The gulf between regulated cellular biochemistry and abiotic chemical processes is qualitative, not merely quantitative. No incremental sequence of undirected chemical steps bridges this gulf, because the gulf is not one of chemical complexity but of information architecture—the very thing that origin-of-life models are least equipped to explain.

The research programme initiated by Truman et al. points towards the concept of analogue metaprogramming in cells: the phenomenon whereby parametrized cryptic encoded information unfolds to generate complex programs. This intuition has been proposed by computer science professor Uwe Assmann during several creation science workshops in Germany and will be communicated in later papers. This recursive generativity—hardware that builds hardware—is a hallmark of sophisticated, intentional engineering. It is the kind of feature that, if found in an extra-terrestrial location, would unhesitatingly be attributed to an intelligent designer.

REs are used by all biological codes and usually in vast copy numbers. This enables massive parallel processing. A well-known example is DNA replication in mammals, that relies on tens of thousands of replication origins, so that billions of base pairs can be copied in parallel sections. In a paper in this edition, I argue that the probability of correctly positioning enormous numbers of REs through random mutation and selection is prohibitively low. The paper further points out that evolving new biological codes would require large amounts of additional non-functional genetic material, which population genetics predicts would impose selective disadvantages that make fixation in populations prohibitively unlikely.

Conclusion

The analogue computing framework presented by Truman et al. offers what no chemistry-first model has provided: a coherent, top-down, systems-level account of how cells actually function. Thousands of sensors, implemented across DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules, respond to continuous signal gradients and initiate cascading, purposeful, recursive programmes. Hardware and software are inseparably integrated. Molecular machinery is manufactured, deployed, and recycled on demand. The entire system reproduces itself faithfully across generations, the result of a top-down design set in motion with each class of original cell. Importantly, complex processes like cell cycle, morphogenesis, immunity, and neurobiology require coordinated regulation of multiple subprocesses,15 all relying on analogue coding programmes.

This image contrasts the view of cells as a collection of chemical reactions vs a sophisticated information-processing technology. Cells are not plausibly the result of prebiotic chemistry. The analogue computing paradigm describes cells more accurately and reveals them, unmistakably, as the products of a mind.

Article – Viewing cells as integrated multiprocessing analogue computing devices by Royal Truman, Journal of Creation. Vol 40, Issue 3

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH

Posted on by

In this interview, Dr. James Tour and Dr. Stephen Meyer discuss science and faith, while getting into the details on the discovery of complex, sequence specific information required for life’s function and origin, and the required fine-tuned laboratory that we call our universe that must exist in order for assembly to occur. Both men are brilliant and good communicators.

I found Dr Stephen Myer’s testimony of how and why he came to faith very convincing and interesting and worth the time invested in watching the video. I also believe I can use it in my efforts to disciple others. I hope you are inspired by it too.

THE DESIGNING FORCE BEHIND THE LIVING WORLD

Posted on by

Who first invented fiber optic cables? Or camera shutters? Or truss structures? Or double wishbone suspensions? Or block-style Roman arches? What about laser beams? As award-winning British engineer and designer Stuart Burgess reveals, the original inventor of these and countless other ingenious devices was no human inventor. Instead, the “first to market” was the designing force behind the living world.

Evolutionary theory predicts a living world crowded with substandard designs. But as Burgess shows in Ultimate Engineering, the latest science has discovered just the opposite — designs so advanced they are at the limit of the possible, precisely as proponents of the theory of intelligent design anticipated. As Burgess also details, he and other researchers are taking the discovery of these advanced designs and using them to inspire fresh technological breakthroughs — a revolution known as biomimetics.

Burgess shows that Darwinian natural selection and mutations cannot produce the wonders seen in the human body. The arguments and confessions of evolutionists are also well documented. One senior professor, a non religious microbiologist suggested that evolutionary theory was “black magic”. Another such professor a leading biology researcher at a top university, said in an equally frank moment, “You wave a magic wand and say, Evolution did it”.

Time spent reading Ultimate Engineering could lead to a new appreciation of where you came from, why you are here and where you are going.

WHY BELIEVE IN SOMETHING YOU CANNOT SEE?

Posted on by

“Science unequivocally requires that all things are composed of matter and energy. Therefore, immaterial substances—such as God or the human soul—cannot exist.”

However, science itself does not provide any substantiation for the premise. After all, if science can deal only with matter and energy, it can’t possibly show that other things can’t exist. Rather, this claimed requirement is a philosophical position called materialism, and there are substantial grounds for doubting it. ‘Materialism’ in philosophy doesn’t mean striving for material goods, but the belief that matter (or mass/energy) is all there is.

Immaterial Creator of the universe

Among the reasons for rejecting materialism are the compelling arguments that support the existence of an immaterial Creator of the universe. These include the design of living things, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the evidence that it has a finite age, among other arguments.

These features of reality are best explained by the biblical teaching that God is the Creator. If these arguments are successful, materialism fails.

Humans are more than mere machines

If materialism were true, humans would consist merely of organized matter, which we have reason to doubt. The renowned atheist Richard Dawkins eloquently articulates his perspective on human nature:

On one planet [Earth], and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing, and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter.

However, this materialistic perspective faces serious philosophical and scientific challenges. If humans are reduced to purely physical objects devoid of any immaterial aspect, it becomes exceedingly difficult to explain many basic truths about human beings.

Intrinsic value

The first of these is a person’s value. Physical objects have value only because we assign value to them. They are tools, not ends in themselves. Their value is extrinsic and dependent on changeable factors. Human beings, on the other hand, possess intrinsic value merely by virtue of being human, independent of external factors. We do not lose our value even if we lose significant capabilities—declining mentally or becoming comatose, to give a couple of examples.

Christians know that our intrinsic value comes from being made in God’s image We are not merely bodies but souls that can relate to God. Yet even non-Christians will often recognize the value of human beings, whether they recognize the source of that value or apply it consistently to all people.

Without intrinsic value, it would be hard to make sense of human rights, for example. We know it’s wrong to treat people as mere objects. But the evolutionary materialism of our age insists we have emerged unaided from animals, which originally arose randomly from simple chemicals. That means that people lack souls and do not bear the image of God. In other words, they can only be mere physical objects. In such a view, the intrinsic nature of our value cannot be accounted for.

First-person perspective

Second, physical objects lack a first-person perspective. They lack consciousness and self-awareness and are incapable of having a truly subjective point of view, using the self-reflexive pronoun ‘I’. Even complex computers and robots with artificial intelligence lack real awareness.

In contrast, human beings do possess a first-person perspective. We are conscious agents, capable of not only awareness but even self-awareness and the ability to articulate our point of view. It is difficult to explain this universal experience if humans are merely physical objects.

image of brain

“DAILY, WE ENCOUNTER MENTAL STATES THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY BRAIN MATTER ALONE.”

Intentional mental states

Third, humans possess intentional mental states. ‘Intentionality’ is a technical term in philosophy that refers to the power of the mind to represent or refer to other things. That is, some mental states can be ‘of’ or ‘about’ something else. Whenever people think, believe, desire, fear, or wonder, they direct their thoughts toward a specific subject or concept. They may think about breakfast, or experience a fear of spiders, for example. Physical events by themselves are not ‘of’ or ‘about’ other things in that same sense, so what happens in our minds is not physical. Daily, we encounter mental states that cannot be explained by brain matter alone.

Human emotion and other ‘felt’ experiences

Fourth, when a person feels joyful, upset, or anxious, the brain is part of the neural circuitry that plays a role in giving that person such experiences. The brain itself, though, is not joyful, upset, or anxious; the person is. The brain is only a complex organ—a physical object with physical properties, similar in that sense to a computer. A computer might be programmed to say, “I’m sad”, but the computer would not really feel sadness. Emotions like happiness, sadness, and fear are not material entities. They can only be experienced by conscious, sentient creatures who have a non-material aspect to their being, like humans and many animals. This is evidence that we are not merely brains in bodies.

Brain research subjects

Empirical studies show results consistent with the above philosophical arguments. For example, pioneering neuroscientist Wilder Penfield conducted over 1,100 brain surgeries in which he stimulated areas of the brain while patients were awake, and noted their responses. He was able to induce bodily movements, sensations, emotions, and memories. But the patients invariably testified that the response was like a reflex, not an action they chose to do. Penfield found he could not stimulate their will. Also, he could not cause them to draw conclusions, make decisions, or even think abstract thoughts (about, say, mathematics). Such experiments suggest that it is the immaterial self which is ultimately responsible for these activities, rather than the physical brain.

IMAGE BEARERS

God developed and populated the earth, which was initially empty (“without form and void”), as described in Genesis 1:2. He executed this task with exceptional precision and skill, thereby establishing a magnificent stage upon which to showcase His most significant creative accomplishment, humankind. Not only did God reserve the best for last, but He also created humans in a manner that distinguished them from animals. According to Genesis 1:26, humans were created to have a unique relationship to God. This was accomplished through the divine plan (“let us make man”), the divine pattern (“in our image”), and the divine purpose (“let them have dominion”). The attribute of being in the image of God (imago Dei) is not merely bestowed by God and retained by humans. It is what gives people special value (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9), and it is part of God’s design for human beings, who were specifically created to represent God on Earth and reflect many of His attributes.

IT’S DNA DAY – DNA IS A COMPLEX LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION SYSTEM

Posted on by

March 6th was National DNA Day in the US because on this day in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick (both atheists) discovered the helical structure of DNA, opening up countless new avenues of research into the complex instruction manual in each of your cells (DNA is a language system and it’s incredibly complex!). And what’s really exciting is that creation scientists are leading the way in new DNA research!

Watson and Crick thought their discovery would prove life wasn’t created—but research has shown the opposite, as DNA is a complex language and information system.

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, one of AIG’s research scientists, has published ground breaking research on the human genome—research that’s only possible because he starts with the biblical timescale of only thousands of years. It’s absolutely fascinating what he’s been able to unravel about human history from the “stamps” in the male-inherited DNA. (You can learn about that research in this article or more fully in this fascinating book).

In honour of National DNA Day, Dr. Jeanson released a short video featuring just a small fraction of his research. You can watch that here:

SOCIETIES BUILT ON THE PREMISE THAT LIFE IS AN ACCIDENT

Posted on by

Extreme cruelty, gross injustice, and disregard for the life of individuals characterise regimes that believe life is an accident.  Examples include Hitler’s National Socialism, Stalin’s Soviet Socialism, and their nauseatingly numerous socialist offspring.  Many socialists mistakenly believe that science can show that life evolved by accident.

Sadly, universities and schools teach our children that evolution is fact and that this cosmos came about by a Big Bang and random chance evolution. As a result, lavishly funded TV spectaculars portray the evolution of life as “scientific”, but it is not.  It cannot be subjected to the scientific method as its assumed processes are not observable.  Darwin insisted his theory could not explain the origin of life but claimed it did explain the lesser problem of how species could have become increasingly complex.  Since Darwin’s time, however, the expected mass of transitions to more and more complex species has been absent from the fossil record.  More importantly, Dr Michael Behe recently discovered organelles driving the flagellum of a bacterium that meet Darwin’s own criteria for falsifying his theory.  Mainstream media has hardly mentioned this, and the educational establishment has ignored it because they will not consider the supernatural. Regardless of the evidence, if it is not natural/materialistic, it is not science.

Fake news also disparages those who accept the scientific evidence for intelligent design of life.  Yet they include science luminary Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Paul Davies who discovered the fine tuning of the universe, renowned microbiologist Dr Dean Kenyon who renounced his celebrated evolutionary work “Biochemical Predestination” to accept intelligent design, Dr Michael Behe who wrote the landmark work “Darwin’s Black Box”, notorious Oxford Professor Anthony Flew who renounced atheism in his book “There is a God”, the brilliant Oxford mathematician Professor John Lennox, mathematician Dr William Dembski who authored “The Design Inference”, and information scientists Dr Lee Spetner and Dr Michael Hasofar who were the first to publish quantified evidence against evolution of species in the world’s leading peer-reviewed “Journal of Theoretical Biology”.

Evolution has been our enemy, Satan’s best strategy, but he realises that its time is over, and he already has his final strategy in place: Aliens. Richard Dawkins, one of the atheists’ most celebrated authors, when argued into a corner on intelligent design, blurted out, “Well, if it’s intelligent design, it must have come from outer space.” Demons are already representing themselves to gullible people as aliens, as good guys, come to save us. These stories are coming to us from people who have experience with UFOs. According to an ABC News poll conducted in 2000, “nearly half of all Americans and millions more globally believe we’re not alone […] 40 million Americans say they have seen or know someone who has seen an unidentified flying object, or UFO,

Look at the many movies and games that feature aliens. Young people are being set up to embrace demons when they manifest as good aliens.

In Gary Bates’s book on Aliens, he provides evidence that these creatures posing as aliens are, in fact, demons. Whenever a person commanded them to go in the name of Jesus, they immediately departed.

Are you ready for all that will proceed Jesus’s return to restore righteousness? The bible gives us a lot of information on the last seven years before Jesus returns to defeat the Antichrist at the battle of Armageddon. If you are new to this blog, then you can go back over previous posts to find out where we are at in terms of Biblical end times prophecy.

PARADIGMS OF ORIGINS

Posted on by

The design of the DNA of a simple cell is much more complex than we see in the development of the latest supercomputers. How do we explain that simple fact with the evolution paradigm? It is impossible. The Genesis paradigm is the only one that can explain the evidence.

Philosopher of Science, Paul Nelson compares the way a supercomputer works, compared to a bacterial cell, and then explores the countless things any paradigm of origins must necessarily explain. After Dr. Paul Nelson received his BA in philosophy with a minor in evolutionary biology from the University of Pittsburgh, he entered the University of Chicago, where he received his PhD (1998) in the philosophy of biology and evolutionary theory. He is a philosopher of biology who has been involved in the intelligent design debate internationally for over two decades.

AS THE BIBLE TELLS US WE ARE FEARFULLY AND WONDERFULLY MADE

Posted on by

Scientists at Harvard University, working with Google AI/machine learning experts, have published an amazing study of a one cubic millimetre piece of human brain. (The piece was excised during a medical procedure).

Sliver of brain tissue

The sliver of tissue, ~3 mm long, was sliced into over 5,000 thin sections and each one was scanned with an electron microscope. The images were then analyzed with Google’s machine learning programs (AI) to piece together a detailed 3-dimensional picture of the cells and their connections.

The tiny fragment contained 57,000 cells and 230 mm (9 in) of fine blood vessels. It had thousands of neurons and nearly 150 million synapses (the major connections between neurons).

The electron microscope images alone occupied 1,400 terabytes of computer memory. To put this in perspective, a typical large external hard drive today stores 20 terabytes. It would take 70 of these hard drives to store the data. But the whole brain is one million times this volume. Scaling up, we would need 70 million hard drives. At just $US300 each, this would cost 21 billion dollars, quite aside from the power to run them. And that’s just for one copy.

The researchers found things that have not been seen before. As one of the co-authors who helped lead the research, Jeff Lichtman, remarked to the Guardian,

“We found many things in this dataset that are not in the textbooks. We don’t understand those things, but I can tell you they suggest there’s a chasm between what we already know and what we need to know.“

We have a long way to go before we understand how the brain works. Indeed, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

It is getting harder and harder for biological scientists to cling to evolution and random chance and deny intelligent design for what they can now observe. Since the discovery of DNA and the electron microscope that revealed complex machinery even in the simplest cell, the demise of evolution as the cause of life on this planet was sealed.

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” Romans 1:20-23

Sample, I., Scientists find 57,000 cells and 150m neural connections in tiny sample of human brain, theguardian.com, 10 May 2024.

Shapson-Coe, A. et al., A petavoxel fragment of human cerebral cortex reconstructed at nanoscale resolution, Science 384(6696):2024.

This article appeared in the latest issue of Creation Magazine

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR

Posted on by

Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Steven Meyer are three leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of the universe and everything in it (including us). In this wide-ranging conversation, they point out the flaws in Darwin’s theory and the increasing amount of evidence uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method that points to an intentional design and creation of the physical world.

You will need over an hour to watch this video but I suggest you will be glad you did. In particular, I like John Lennox for his pearls of wisdom, and rating the three men as to what gems I learned, it would be 1. John Lennox, 2. Stephen Meyer and 3. Michael Behe. I need to watch the video again at least once more, to make notes, of the information I will incorporate to improve my argument for the God of the Bible’s existence.

FOR GEN Z, GOD AND THEREFORE HOPE ARE GONE

Posted on by

Our godless schools and universities have taught this generation that this Cosmos came into existence through a Big Bang and evolution. Despite the overwhelming evidence for an intricately designed universe, they cannot and will not countenance God.

Why? “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 and they have been blinded by the god of this world, our supernatural enemy, Satan. “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

By definition, hope is beyond us and bigger than us. True Hope is given by God. Gen Z is a generation that has no hope. It is destined for hopelessness and depression.

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” Romans 15:13

“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ… ” Titus 2:12-14

This post was inspired by my reading Martyn Iles’s book WHO AM I? SOLVING THE IDENTITY PUZZLE. I love his challenge in the book:

I challenge any reader to find me positive feedback on the human condition outside of Jesus Christ, after THE FALL OF MAN (Genesis 3), anywhere in Scripture. You and I frequently do the wrong thing because our hearts are corrupted by all kinds of sin. That has always been the human predicament after Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

Fortunately, our Heavenly Father has provided a way back into the right relationship with Him.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” John 3:16-21