Notes on Michael Behe's Intelligent Design talk

Tonight I heard Dr. Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and leading figure in the Intelligent Design movement, speak on the topic at Penn State. He was an invited guest of the "Science & the Bible Club," and he spoke to a full (and mostly sympathetic) house. In fact, I'm sure we violated the fire code. His talk was entitled:

“Answering Objections to the Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology”

Behe’s Disclaimer: he’s representing only himself.

What follows is my attempt to take as complete notes as possible, with a brief assessment at the end.



I. Argument for Intelligent Design Itself

His argument:

Design is not mystical. It is deduced from physical structure of a system.
Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear designed.
There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.
Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination [synonym for faith]
Bottom Line: We have strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism


1. Design is not mystical. It is deduced from physical structure of a system.

What is meant by intelligent design?

The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details. We infer design whenever parts appear arranged to accomplish a function.



Is the conclusion of design necessarily a religious one? No, it is a logical one. We can’t necessarily infer when or who or why or how. Only what.



The strength of the inference is quantitative. [huh?]



2. Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear designed.

Richard Dawkins book, “the Blind Watchmaker”

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” p. 1



So according to Dawkins (in Behe’s words), biology is more like observing Mt. Rushmore than your average mountain, or even the Old Man in the Mountain. It gives evidence of design. It’s not an aesthetic conclusion, but an engineering conclusion.



Paraphrasing Dawkins: we say it’s well designed if an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose…

But Dawkins insists that biology can produce the appearance of design w/o having been designed.



3. But there are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.” Darwin, Origin of Species, p. 58



Here’s a problem for Darwin:

Behe’s signature concept & contribution to ID: Irreducible Complexity.

A mousetrap needs each of its parts to work. Take away any piece, it doesn’t work only half as well; it doesn’t work at all. Irreducibly complex things are a headache for Darwinian thought. How would a mousetrap “evolve”? It couldn’t work that way.



Are there any irreducibly complex biological systems, cellular systems, biochemical systems? A couple examples:

The Bacterial Flagellum (the outboard motor of bacteria). Can’t take away any of the parts and it still works.
Everyone talks about the cells as “machines,” “motors, clocks, springs and things,” “engines.”


4. Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination

Imagination is important; but undisciplined imagination is a double-edged sword. If you have a good imagination, you’ll see things that other people have missed. But with an undisciplined imagination, you’ll see things that aren’t there.



Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box was widely reviewed:

“We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (cites Behe); but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

--Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell, Oxford UP 2001



What principle is it by which we reject ID? Harold didn’t say. Behe believes it’s “Ghostbusters,” ie, the belief that in ID extra-scientific ideas with supernatural beliefs are being wrongly imported into (in place of) Science.



Behe: Science is supposed to follow the evidence, wherever it goes. Let other people worry about the philosophy and its implications.



5. Bottom Line: We have strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism



“Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker, p.21



So, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc., how is it not a duck? Dawkins says it’s not a duck, even though it looks, smells, sounds, tastes like one. They call it an “in-duck-tive” argument. (Ba dum cha). But Encyclopedia Britannica says, “inductive reasoning is the logic normally used in the Sciences.” In other words, ID is rationally justified.



II. A Rebuttal to Several Objections to Intelligent Design



1. Judge John Jones and the Dover Case

Behe testified at length for the losing side in the Dover Case. Behe believes ID rationally justified; Judge John Jones (in the Dover case) disagreed. Strongly worded verdict against ID. Judge’s opinion was 139 pages.

Eric Rothschild—lead attorney for the other side—presented a “findings of fact and conclusions of law” that was 161 pages, very long.

Judge Jones cut-and-pasted Rothschild at points, nearly word for word.

At one point, Judge Jones quoted Behe talking about design as an “analogy,” but it was Rothschild who characterized it that way.

And this kind of plagiarism is legal in legal circles, but Behe’s argument is that Judge Jones didn’t understand the material (that’s why it’s not allowed in school). And it was Judge Jones who apparently made up a bunch of people’s minds (like Scott Adams of Dilbert).



[This part of the lecture felt like Behe’s attempt at prosecuting Judge Jones. He was not rebutting the arguments themselves; it’s an ad hominem argument against the capabilities of Judge Jones. The temptation to get even a bit was just too tempting, I guess. But it weakened his overall argument, because he had ceased talking science. ]



His point was that people like Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) who said that the judge’s decision was “good enough for me” are not off the hook.



2. Prof. John McDonald, Univ. of Delaware

“A Reducibly Complex Mousetrap”

A prof. who allegedly refuted Behe’s mousetrap argument by “designing” mousetraps by taking one part out at a time, eventually down to one part.

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

But his mousetraps are not physical precursors, but conceptual ones.

And they are intelligently designed traps. Nor would they evolve from step one to step two and so on. So this critique ultimately doesn’t work.



Unfortunately I couldn't stay for the Q&A, which I’m sure was interesting.



Behe has quite a bit more info at his blog on Amazon.com, connected to his books.



In short, I felt like I saw what makes the ID movement so interesting, and yet what also short-circuits it. The first half of Behe’s lecture was coherent, informed, and compelling. He made a solid case for the inclusion of ID in the scientific discussion. But the second half departed from science and made ad hominem arguments that undermined his case and were ultimately ineffective. While ID deserves a fair hearing, and is most assuredly not getting one in many places (just watch Ben Stein’s movie Expelled), the second half of Behe’s talk gave skeptics too many reasons to reject the issue out of hand.

[UPDATE: This morning I read a NYT editorial on the Texas School Board handling of evolution. It included these revealing paragraphs:

Conservatives tried — but failed — to reinsert a phrase requiring students to study the “strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories, including evolution. That language had been in the standards for years, but it was eliminated by experts who prepared the new standards for board approval because it has become a banner for critics of Darwinian evolution who seek to exaggerate supposed weaknesses in the theory.

The conservatives also narrowly lost attempts to have students study the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of natural selection to explain the complexities of the cell, a major issue for proponents of intelligent design. The conservatives also failed to get the word “sufficiency” inserted by itself, presumably because that would imply insufficiency as well. They had to settle for language requiring students to “analyze, evaluate and critique” scientific explanations and examine “all sides” of the scientific evidence.

So now the study of strengths and weaknesses is explicitly disallowed when it comes to Science? Who is the one suppressing genuine scientific inquiry? Who is the one imposing their ideology? Behe's point about following the evidence is well taken. Frankly, this is an embarrassing decision for the evolutionary fundamentalists, because it reveals how willing they are to compromise genuine science in the name of their evolutionary ideology.]

Want to know who the “Real Jesus” was? Ask the people who were there.

As a society, we value first-hand knowledge and experience more than ever. With the ever-expanding immanence of technology, there’s no need to rely on 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of anything. We can connect to someone who was there—is there—through YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook. We don’t trust accounts that aren’t firsthand. We want up close and personal.

It’s Spring, which means three things: flowers budding, students sweating impending finals, and loads of stories about “the real Jesus” in magazines and on TV as we approach Easter. What do we really know about him, and how do we know? Is it possible to get any sense of who he really was? Do we have any first-hand accounts that tell us what we want to know?

I recently got acquainted with Richard Bauckham’s landmark book Jesus & the Eyewitnesses to prepare for a discussion on these very questions at Sojourn, our Thursday night forum for questioning faith and doubt.

I had been hearing about the book for a while now, so I was eager to get a hold of it. While I don’t have the time to write a full review of the book here—that’s already been done in several places, better than I could anyway—I will try to summarize some of what makes the book so helpful.

To understand the value of Bauckham’s contribution to NT scholarship and apologetics, it’s important to understand something of the context. For over 250 years, the “Jesus of Faith” has been pitted against “The Historical Jesus” of Higher Criticism. In other words, we are told that we must choose which Jesus we believe in: either the one we read about in the Gospels, or the “real” one behind or underneath the Gospels, who must be recovered by higher critics and their scholarly methods.

Form Criticism is a branch of Higher Criticism, along with Redaction Criticism and Source Criticism. (Lower Criticism refers to Textual Criticism, the discipline of comparing the thousands of biblical manuscripts and their variants in order to recover the most reliable biblical text). It’s impossible to define an entire discipline of scholarship in a nutshell without being reductionistic, but essentially Form Criticism is the method of classifying units of Scripture by their literary form and their cultural context (Sitz im Leben), in order to determine how the story was originally told. If you took Religious Studies and learned how the Pentateuch is made up of four traditions known as JEDP (aka, the documentary hypothesis), you’ve learned Form Criticism.

One of the central assumptions of Form Criticism—and the one that has arguably had the most sweeping impact—is that the Gospels are derived from several generations of oral tradition, and are therefore less reliable. This is the “Whisper Down the Lane” argument—that whatever was originally said must have been corrupted (and probably intentionally changed) by following generations. (You can partially thank Form Criticism for all those magazine covers and TV specials purporting to have uncovered “the truth” about “the Real Jesus”). The changes over time produce “layers” on top of the original story. Form Critics believe they can strip away these layers (and agendas) to arrive at the kernel of truth or actual event within a given story.

There are several problems with this approach, notably 1) the outright skepticism of the historicity of what we have in the Gospels; 2) the assumption of a lengthy and corrupting oral tradition; 3) the often accompanying anti-supernaturalistic assumptions (since we know Jesus couldn’t have performed miracles, we know those stories must have been added later); and 4) the optimism that their critical method can reconstruct something more accurate and true than the Biblical accounts. It’s important to note that the study of the Bible’s literary and cultural contexts is important and profitable; it’s the accompanying presuppositions of Form Criticism that are problematic.

The most egregious (and admittedly extreme) example of Higher Criticism at work is the infamous Jesus Seminar. This illustrious gathering of scholars (which includes Paul Verhoeven, the director of such cinematic gems as Robocop, Basic Instinct, and Showgirls) has radically redefined what they believe to be the accurate depiction of the real Jesus. By means of voting with four colored beads, they decide which statements are most or least likely to actually have been said by Jesus himself. Among their criteria for inauthenticity is anything self-referential (which would automatically rule out much of the Gospel of John); any “framing” material surrounding an event or story (such as who Jesus was addressing, curiously eliminating the all-important contextual clues); and anything perceived to have a theological agenda (you know, because Jesus himself wouldn’t have had any theological ideas or anything). Not surprisingly, they end up with something like 15-20 “authentic” statements, and a Jesus whom no one would care to listen to, let alone crucify.

Tomorrow, I will outline Bauckham’s response to Form Criticism and how his approach is able to bring together the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.

Jim Collins (Good to Great) optimistic about the next generation

Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, in an interview in the April 2009 issue of Inc.magazine.

Q: What’s the source of your optimism?
A: A lot of it has to do with the young generation. A general at West Point told me, ‘This is the most inspired and inspiring generation to come through West Point since 1945.’ I see the same thing with the young people who come to work for me. They have a sense of responsibility and service and a lack of cynicism that is remarkable and wonderful. It’s an ethos, and its collective. That’s what’s really powerful. It’s connected technologically. It’s not grandiose, but there is a fundamental assumption of being part of a much larger world and a much larger set of aspirations. The world can be a really awful, brutal, turbulent place. And yet I’m hopeful precisely because of this generation of kids. I really think we ought to just give them the keys as soon as we can. Let them run it.

In working with you, the next generation, I share Collins' assessment and optimism. I agree--let's give you the keys! That's what Missio Dei is about--unleashing you to make a difference for the Kingdom! So here’s the keys—where are you taking us?

I Asked the Lord that I Might Grow

John Newton (1725-1807) is famous for being the former slave trader-turned-pastor who penned the words to the well-known and beloved hymn "Amazing Grace." He was also a mentor to the great abolitionist William Wilberforce and to the hymnist William Cowper, and for many years pastored a congregation in Olney, England, where he was noted for his outreach to the poor and for his preaching.

As this poem reveals, he was a probing contemplative as well as a gifted lyricist. He had a powerful understanding of the Gospel, and he captures well the struggle with sin and the surprising ways in which God answers our prayers for growth in holiness. 

I asked the Lord that I might grow,

In faith and love and every grace,

Might more of His salvation know,

And seek more earnestly His face.

It was He who taught me thus to pray,

And He I trust has answered prayer.

But it has been in such a way,

As almost drove me to despair.

I hoped that in some favored hour,

At once He'd answer my request.

And by His love's constraining power,

Subdue my sins and give me rest.

Instead of this, He made me feel,

The hidden evils of my heart.

And let the angry powers of hell,

Assault my soul in every part.

Yes, more with His own hand,

He seemed, Intent to aggravate my woe.

Crossed all the fair designs I schemed,

Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.

"Lord, why is this?" I trembling cried.

Will You pursue Your worm to death?"

"This is the way" the Lord replied,

"I answer prayer for grace and strength."

"These inward trials I employ,

From self, and pride, to set you free;

And break your schemes of earthly joy,

That you may find thy all in Me."

—John Newton

Is there a "Coming Evangelical Collapse"?

Michael Spencer, aka the Internet Monk, thinks so. His article on the Coming Evangelical Collapse (CEC) has me agreeing with him.

We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

Spencer goes on to outline why this has happened (shallow theology, caving in to consumerism, fighting the wrong battles, ie, the culture wars), and what the landscape will look like (less professed evangelicals, more Catholic and Orthodox converts, and more persecution).
He also goes on to say that this is not all bad--there is much of evangelicalism that needs to die. The corruptions and perversions attached to evangelicalism need to be washed away, like the health and wealth heresy. (How long would it take Joel Osteen to become an all-out universalist if his lucrative livelihood was threatened?)

I don't know if I see things quite as direly as Spencer does, but he is right. Current evangelicalism is incredibly and tragically shallow. It is biblically and culturally illiterate. It has retreated to its Holy Huddle, and is utterly unprepared to survive in a hostile society. The environment for being a Christian in the West is rapidly changing. Might Obama be our last professing Christian president? Maybe. If not him, perhaps the next. Will Christianity be expelled from all civic discourse, politics, academia? Likely. Will Christians face some form of persecution? Likely. Will the money dry up, in the Christian world, as Spencer predicts? Yes, but this will likely be a good thing in the big picture, as many stupid/silly projects won't get funding. But it will still hurt many worthwhile ministries, eg, someone like me who raises support for a living. Many of us will have to consider going bivocational.

I've contemplated dropping the term "evangelical" as a self-descriptor because of the culture-warrior baggage and because the tent has become so big that I don't want to affiliate myself with beliefs/causes I believe to be unbiblical. I've heard some folks going with their tribe (Reformed), or using "orthodox" (small "o") to describe their time-tested, biblical beliefs.

What do you think? Is evangelicalism going to collapse? Is it already? Do you use that term to describe yourself? Why/why not? Will we face persecution soon? Will the money dry up? What does a post-evangelical America look like?

Pruning to Bear Fruit

We have a peach tree in our yard. At least, we think it’s a peach tree. Late last summer, it bore a very peculiar, shriveled, sour-tasting fruit-like substance that we placed somewhere in the peach family. It seems that the previous owners were not much in to pruning, so the tree became rather unfocused in its growth. Dozens of little branches here and there; undisciplined growth all over the place; and no fruit—at least not the kind of fruit worth eating.

 

We were told by a friend who knows about these things that when you have an overgrown fruit tree, you need to really pare it back. This is short-term loss, but long-term gain. If you do it right, the tree won’t be ready to bear good fruit the first year (nor will it even look pretty), but in the second year, the tree’s energies will no longer be diluted, and its growth should result in sweet, delicious fruit. Peach cobbler. Peach pie. Peach jam. Mmm.

 

So Saturday morning I took out the chainsaw and started hacking away. I lopped off limb after unfruitful limb. It was satisfying. When I was done, it seemed that three trees worth of limbs had been cut down. Somehow, all the branches had come down from this one little tree. I had thought it would take 3 minutes. But pruning it well had been a more involved procedure than I had thought. Yes, I enjoyed the violence of it—but all the more because it was constructive violence.

 

Yes, I am a little worried that my pruning was too extreme. I may have gotten carried away. We’ll know for sure next year. The proof is in the peaches, so to speak. During my pruning, Jesus’ words in John 15 seemed especially fresh and relevant:

 

I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.” (John 15:1-2)

 

Some Lessons Learned from Actually Pruning a Fruit Tree

 

1. Showy fruitlessness is worthless. Bearing fruit is the point! Not all growth is good growth. What good is a peach tree that doesn’t bear peaches? Not much. This tree did have a lot of growth, but it wasn’t the right kind. It was undisciplined, unintentional—and unfruitful. It was darn near losing the right to be called a peach tree. Showy fruitlessness is why Jesus condemned the fig tree in Mark 11:12-14.

 

2. Pruning is short-term loss, long-term gain. The same morning I pruned the tree, I had breakfast with a mentor. He not-so-coincidentally brought up John 15, and he said that a recent pruning season in his life “put me on the bench for three months.” But he spoke with commingled joy and sorrow about it, because he was in a much better place now. The pruning had done its work.

 

3. Pruning is constructive violence. It takes things we may think are important, even essential, and hacks them off. After years of unfruitful “growth,” it may take a chainsaw! It may be painful. But it will be for ours—and others’—good.

 

4. Jesus is the Vine and God the Father is the Good Vinedresser. He knows what he’s doing.  His pruning (unlike mine) will always result in greater fruitfulness. He is wise and we can trust him.  

TIME mag cites "New Calvinism" as one of the "10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now"

This is old news to those of us inside the movement, but its notable when TIME notices the resurgence of neo-Calvinism. They give shout-outs to John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Al Mohler. It is true, as the article notes, that the real energy and vigor in the evangelical world is coming from Reformed circles. From their most recent issue.

What is a movement? 12 marks

If you hang around me long enough, you know I'm fond of talking about Missio Dei as a movement. But what exactly IS a movement? How is it different from what others may be doing? And why is this distinction important? 

Recently a pastor friend challenged me with those questions, and this was my response. I drew it from my study of revivals and awakenings, going back to the first Great Awakening of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield and the Wesleys; the Haystack Revival; the Welsh Revival; the Student Volunteer Movement; the work of men like D.L. Moody and Billy Graham; and modern movements ranging from Vineyard and Calvary Chapel to Sovereign Grace, Redeemer, and Acts 29. Part of this draws on a talk I heard Mark Driscoll give at an Acts29 Boot Camp in Raleigh in Feb 09. 

So is Missio Dei a movement? Not yet. But I think we're heading in the right direction. You should also know that I'm personally uncomfortable with #11, but it seems impossible to ignore when you look at history. 

1. It’s an extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit of God upon a praying people. It is inherently something beyond the normal workings of God, and well beyond man’s ability to create.

 

2. It’s characterized by extraordinary events and transformations: the renewal of an apathetic, dry church; resulting in many conversions of people within and without the visible church.

 

3. It is unusual in its degree and scope. It breaks down human distinctions which are not biblical and which have impeded Kingdom expansion (ie, the convergence of charismatic theology with the Reformed world in recent years).

 

4. It actively seeks to NOT become institutionalized. When it becomes institutionalized, it loses a great deal of momentum.

 

5. It is discerning about the essentials--those things which must be agreed on or maintained (closed hand), and which are non essentials—those things not necessary to agree on (open hand). There is unity in diversity.

 

6. It CAN work in concert with institutions, to renew and expand them.

 

7. It is a recovery of sound theology and practices—what are not new, but seem that way to those experiencing them.

 

8. It is messy around the edges—and sometimes at the middle. It attracts bad theology, bad practices, and unstable people.

 

9. A movement generates a lot of discussion, both within and without the movement. Some of it is healthy; much of it is gossip and speculation and criticism. But it cannot be ignored.

 

10. It takes hits on both sides. From secular leaning folks, and from the religious establishment. The bad apples are used by skeptics to discredit the entire movement.

 

11. It is frequently spearheaded by a particularly charismatic or larger-than-life leader who seems to be anointed for the task. These leaders are lavished with praise by their followers, but are frequently unfairly criticized and undergo great suffering and temptation.

 

12. It leaves lasting changes in those impacted by it: individuals, families, churches, communities, and even cultures are never the same. 

10 Guidelines for Missional Partying

Going to school in this town you are bound to end up at a few parties.

These situations are both strategic and dangerous.

They are strategic as a relational opportunity to connect with your friends, meet new people, and perhaps even find a chance to share your faith. One of the things that Jesus was criticized for was that he hung out with drunks, tax collectors, and prostitutes, and beggars. We need to do the same.

But as Christians, we also have to realize that these situations can be full of pitfalls...or maybe another good metaphor would be the idea of running through mine-fields. We should not be ignorant of the fact that while God may call us to enter these situations from time to time, we should go in with our heads up, taking the advice of 1 Peter 1:13-- having sober-minds, prepared for action.

Here are some general guidelines that may help you work through which situations you should be in and which situations you need to avoid:

1. Be sensative to the Spirit-- pray beforehand -- if at any point you feel you shouldn't be there, get out!

2. If you are double-minded at all (in other words you know that you are kindof looking for an opportunity to satisfy your flesh, but rationalizing it telling yourself you are being missional), don't go!

3. Set up some accountability-- let a Christian friend know you are going into this situation, and decide on a time for them to give you a call and check up on you. Better yet, take a Christian friend with you!

4. Know before-hand why you are going, who you want to connect with, and the amount of time you want to stay.

5. Make an effort to always be in conversation-- on your feet-- not lingering, watching, or leaving yourself open to temptation (you know what that means for you). If you are there to reach out to your friends, be intentional and do it! Don't coast into neutral.

6. If your friends are too drunk to have real conversations, doing something else might be a wiser use of your time.

7. Don't participate in or appear to condone any behavior that is illegal, or sinful. If you feel like you are condoning illegal or sinful behavior by just by being there, then you should leave. Keep in mind 1 Peter 4:3,4: "The time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkeness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery..."

8. Always remember that you are a missionary-- a representative of Christ-- wherever you are. The question is: Will people see Christ in you, or will you blend in to the crowd?

9. Are you in the position where you could host parties-- where you could be in a little more control of what's going on, but still hang out with the people you want to reach out to? Think about hosting parties at your place, and show people you don't have to get drunk out of your mind to have a good time. Have good food, drinks (you can make the call about whether or not any alcohol will be involved...perhaps it can be a byob if people want to drink alcohol...), games, movie, whatever your creative mind can come up with.

10. Remember 1 Corinthians 10:31 "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

This is not an extensive list...there are probably a lot more things that could be added, but hopefully I got you thinking.