January 30, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

To kickoff the Jan 2010 release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on DVD in the UK, a debate was arranged via phone between ID theorist Stephen Myer and Oxford evolutionist Peter Atkins on Premier Radio UK. I found the whole radio hour to be amazingly one-sided, with all logic brought to bear on the ID side and only name-calling and posturing in support of evolution. In his closing arguments, however, there was a particularly striking statement made by Professor Atkins as his last point (beginning at minute 52:01):
“Everyone, both of non-religious and religious disposition, should take pride in the fact that the human brain has emerged and is capable of understanding, understanding seemingly without limit. I think that’s a wonderful, wonderful organ, and a wonderful aspect of the physical world; and for people like Stephen (Meyer) and his colleagues to suggest that there is an area where the human mind cannot penetrate, cannot get understandable, comprehensible explanation, I think that’s a denial of humanity.”
I am struck that an appeal to pride would be made as the final argument against considering an alternative view. If asked what the greatest enemy of truth is, we might be tempted to say, “a lie!” But it isn’t. A lie may be the opposite of truth, but a lie that does not appeal to pride will not be believed. The greatest enemy of the truth is pride, because without pride, a lie has no power.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 18, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

Does it bother anyone else that we are supposed to be “going green” by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? I learned in my ninth grade biology class that GREEN plants need carbon dioxide to “breath” just as animals need oxygen. I also learned, probably long before that, that green houses were places that green plants grow better. So some how by reducing carbon dioxide we are supposed to make Planet Earth “greener?” Fundamentals like that cause me to look a little harder at all the statistics that are supposed to make us responsible for global warming. Why is it that they include figures like how many pounds of carbon dioxide humans and their industries have put into the atmosphere each year, but I can’t find anywhere what percent of the earth’s carbon dioxide that is at any given time? One example is this link by UC San Diego. Glance down to the graph showing the rise in carbon dioxide captured in polar snow. Are the any studies on how fast carbon dioxide escapes from polar snow? This would be vital to any indication of change over time.
In that same paragraph in which that graph first intrudes, there is an explanation of the increase in CO2 ppm that includes a logarithmic conversion. Logarithmic conversions are useful when measuring things that increase by huge multiples in comparing their significance, as with the Richter Scale for earthquakes. They are absolutely useless in comparing two numbers where one is not even double the other. Perhaps it was included so that the average reader would get lost and just accept the conclusion, in this case that “we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale.” Anyone with four-function math skills can tell that 360 divided by 280 is closer to a fourth in difference than it is to a third (28.6%). The actual increase since 1957 is a little over a fourth. For the sake of argument, let’s use logs and give them the third. It certainly sounds more dramatic to say that the number is more than a third of the way to doubling than to say it’s gone up by a little over a third, which is of course the same thing, but without using the word “doubling” it sounds less ominous.
OK, so assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by one third since 1957. During that same time frame the population of humans (Remember, they are the villains in this story.) has increased from less than 3 billion to around 6.8 billion, which is MORE than double. Sometimes people are forced in a direction against their better judgment, but it’s more powerful to direct their judgment by withholding certain information.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 10, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

If you believe there is no god, I don’t blame you. Very few people who “believe” can actually give a reason why they believe. They just say, “Do it.” So you just don’t. So what evedence would convince you that there is a god? How about just to believe there is a supernatural realm?
I think the first thought of most of us would be some kind of undeniable, supernatural display. (I’m thinking lights, sounds, and awesome appearances.) I’m afraid that’s a contradiction in terms. If it is “supernatural” (outside of normal experiences), then it is by definition, “deniable,” because it has no reference point in our reality. Not only would no one else believe you, but you would be hard pressed to believe it yourself after just a little time. Maybe it was a dream, induced by greasy pizza.
What if others saw it, too? Better, but still not there. How many others? How long ago? If you don’t believe in
God, then how convinced are you by stories of “miracles?” Events, no matter how many witnesses, lose credibility over time. They are not testable, therefore not “scientific” knowledge.
So it would have to be something tangible, testable, replicable in the sense that you could always find it. You could go back to it, point others to it; and others could verify it was there, and is continuously there. Testable implies some undeniable cause-and-effect, or there is no connection of facts, no evidence of anything.
As usual, the cause-and-effect must constitute a bridge between the known and the unknown. In this case the know effect is measurable with our senses, and the unknown cause is not detectable with our senses. So far, I am not suggesting anything beyond modern chemistry. In this case however, the “effect” must be defined as “natural,” while the “cause” portion of the bridge must be defined as “supernatural.”
Defining the effect as natural is easy. It could be anything detectable as proposed above. It is known and experienced to materially exist, but it must have one additional characteristic. It has to be something that undeniably has not always existed. It must have come into existence at some point in history, thus making it undeniably part of a cause-and-effect relationship.
But the supernatural cause portion must also meet two specific tests. The cause must be sufficiently supernatural to have no rational explanation within any known or even suspected laws of chemistry, physics, or other sciences. While we are at it, let’s throw in no known mathematics. If the cause portion of the bridge is rationally explainable within our experiences, then the whole cause-and-effect is within our realm of experience, and it is natural, not supernatural. There is no bridge. It gives no clue about the supernatural.
But the cause must also have some link to our reality. It must somehow relate to something in the material world as we know it without being in and of our “natural” world. That something must be a parallel material existence that has a measurable natural cause.
For these two criteria in the cause to converge with the two criteria for the effect in a cause-and-effect relationship, four conditions must be detectable: (1) the effect is something material (2) that has not always existed; (3) there is no rational cause for what exists within suggested laws of science or mathematics; yet (4) what exists has a parallel material existence with a known measurable cause. Stated another way, for “cause-and-effect” to bridge that supernatural-natural gap, the effect would have to be completely in our realm of experience, while the cause would have to be one that we could recognize in form, but with no possible origin within our material experience.
May I suggest consideration of such linked material evidence? If the same criteria used by archeologists to conclude that markings on chards and ancient walls are written language are in turn applied to DNA codes, the inevitable conclusion is that DNA carries a written language. I dare say there is no definition of written language that will work consistently for archeologists, or even SETI, that would exclude the messaging that we know to be carried in DNA. DNA carries written language.
(Note: Materially, DNA is a string of organic compounds that may be arranged in a virtually infinite number of ways, thus allowing it to carry a language. Scientists may hope someday to recreate DNA-type molecular strings in the laboratory, but this is simply a language medium, not the language itself. The medium, whether DNA, papyrus, silicon or whatever, is irrelevant. The language exists apart from the medium and could be transmitted through other mediums, even though we may know it through only one.)
The only known cause for written language is intelligence. That is, the language had to be designed with a specific application in mind. May I repeat, “mind?” Our only material experience with minds capable of composing and writing language is humans. Human intelligence is the only known cause with the effect of written language.
There is no rational and natural explanation for DNA carrying a written language, and yet we know that only intelligence causes written language. The conclusion is that DNA carries a written language imposed upon it by an intelligence outside of what we call “natural.” The logical conclusion is that the written language carried in DNA is both intelligent and supernatural in origin.
I believe I have said nothing here that is inconsistent with the logic of Stephen Myer’s in Signature in the Cell, though his logic begins and ends on different grounds.
Myer’s argument begins with science and ends with science. My argument begins and ends instead with a priory assumptions about the supernatural. This is because most people do not reject ID (intelligent design) arguments for scientific reasons. They do it for strongly-held, though possibly subconscious, beliefs about the nature of God, which include assumptions about His participation (or lack thereof) in the universe as we know it. The person following this logic must have no preconceived limits on what can be concluded from the thought process. Without that, any attempt at an honest conclusion is short-circuited. Though some might claim that they reject theology for scientific reasons, they in fact reject science for theological reasons.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 2, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

I went into my local Barnes & Noble bookstore today to consider a copy of Stephen Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell. From all accounts, it’s making quite an impression, though apparently not on Barnes & Noble: Upon asking for where I might find it, the store employee escorted me to the collection on comparative religion. A book on DNA is located in “comparative religion?” I guess that’s OK, as long as one understands that the religion it is compared with is Darwinian evolution.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

December 13, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Despite “Climategate,” and a growing number of outspoken scientific skeptics, the global warming summit plowed ahead. What else could they do? There is a lot invested in the idea that man is causing global warming: Grants are less likely to be issued for what man cannot change, and how can he change it if he did not cause it? I’m hearing some common liturgy, like “Show me the peer reviewed opposition,” when the opposition is not allowed through the peer review process. The deaf ear of the politically correct is scary, but not as scary as what lies at its heart. I am afraid that the political bulldozing of free scientific inquiry into questioning Darwin has bled into other areas of science. That once “scientists” discovered that funding and publication could be protected for one dominant opinion in one area of science, it could be done for another. Who cares about finding the truth? It can only slow down fame and fortune. Who cares about stifled enterprise and joblessness when the appearance of a united front is more valued? I just heard a quote I love: “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”~Flannery O’Conner.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

November 24, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

November 24, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

I need some help if I’m going to learn to draw with Photoshop, so I went to the web. I never cease to be amazed at the free resources available there. For this article I want to compare and contrast two very useful tutorials, not to teach anything about drawing, but to illustrate an important point about design itself.
The first is “How to Draw High-Detailed Glass Ball.” This site gives clear step-by-step instructions with pictures for the many details that, though unnoticed by most of us, are necessary to convince the mind that a real glass sphere has been photographed, nor drawn. I’m going to have to do this exercise several times; there is much for me to learn here.
The other site, “How to Draw a Horse,” is equally useful, with a major difference. This second site again gives detailed, step-by-step instructions, and there is much to learn from the techniques presented. The difference between the two sites, however, is obvious from the very first step: The learner must have some talent!
Yes, the first art instructor is obviously talented too, but the object of study was probably purposely selected for any motivated learner to master. In the second, once the learner gets past the layout lines that divide the drawing surface into 3×3 boxes, the learner must simply be given a reference photograph and the foundational sketch of a horse.
Both tutorials are well done but aimed at different learners. Both could be reverse engineered back to the foundational images, but there the differences are blatant. The foundation of the first is a colored circle. The foundation of the second is a sketch. The first image is built entirely on the graphic capacities of the software. The second requires at least a modestly talented artist at its base. Even if the high-priced software is at my disposal, the requirements of the sketch are irreducible to software capabilities.
In the same way, the laws of physics are not enough to explain what we find when we reverse engineer any living organism. Even if we assume the laws of physics (like the drawing software) somehow occurred without a designer, we eventually get to a level where the input of a designer is blatant, unavoidable, and irreducible.

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | No Comments »

November 13, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

The Christian Science Monitor reported that as of November 14 “military investigators’ position thus far that Hasan acted alone and without instruction when he attacked Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center Nov. 5, killing 13 and wounding 29.” Many conservative bloggers and pundits are arguing that Hasan should be considered as, and tried as, a terrorist; and that the whole thing would not have happened but for political correctness blinding us from the symptoms of the impending danger.
That may well be, but I think they are still missing a larger and more important point, one also missed during the Bush administration and also hidden as a result of politically correct word “terrorism.” Ladies and gentlemen, our enemy is not terrorism, and there can be no war on terrorism. Terrorism is a technique. It’s killing and maiming innocent people to demoralize and disorganize them. To say there is a war against terrorism would be like the British among the American revolutionaries saying that they were engaged in a war against fighting behind trees. No one wants to offend Muslims by pointing out that in every attack that we label as “terrorism,” the perpetrators have acted in the name of Allah.
No, that’s not my point either. Most Muslims seem to live peacefully enough, no more willing to believe and act on every word of the Qur’an as God’s word than most Christians do in respect to the Bible. The culprits are that faction known as radical Muslims, but that is still not the carefully hidden truth of the matter.
It is important to know if Hasan acted alone in order to trace down any “sleeper cells” or other yet-to-be-discovered strategies in opposition to the US. But the pursuit is also fueled by an intentional ignorance. People want to believe that we are threatened by an organization or a group of organizations like organized crime. It isn’t. The enemy is not a new kind of mafia. It is an ideology. Let me be more blunt: It is a certain belief about the nature of God—Who He is, what He values, and what He rewards and punishes. Yes, a person can buy into and act upon an ideology, especially a religious one, without being recruited into an “organization.”
Some rightly fear that if this fact is acknowledged by the masses then Christians will come under even more attack as all religious beliefs are rolled together. This may also be, but it still does not reach the depths of the distasteful truth.
In his small but powerful book Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer argues from the very first page, that “what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” The more I think about this, the more I am convinced it is true.
The carefully hidden truth is that everyone has a belief about God, and that (here’s the part most difficult to swallow) that belief drives all persons’ behaviors. It does not just affect the behavior of those people who say they believe IN God. The statement concerns what we think ABOUT God. All of us have a belief ABOUT God, which is driven by what we think about God.. or is it the other way around? It doesn’t matter in this case. Those who think they have freed themselves from God and religion are wrong. What they think about God drives their behavior no less than it does for those who have different conclusions about who and what He is (or it is, depending on their belief system). We all are driven by religious beliefs, and we cannot help but act on them and (even irrationally) defend them against those who would have us compromise them. Some will think I have digressed from the usual topic of this blog. I haven’t.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Notable Quotes | No Comments »

October 11, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Recently I cited the “tree of life” diagrams of Talking Squid in discussing assumptions of evolution. There they have done a good job of explaining past and current tree metaphors from an evolutionist point of view. I’d like to add a few comments to round out the value of the concept.
To begin, Talking Squid does not say, but one could take from the wording, that Darwin invented the tree concept for representing a common origin of all life. In fact we have a tree drawn by Porphyry (234-305 AD) in his introduction to Aristotle’s Categories. It was his graphic representation of what he had developed from Aristotle’s words, and it has been reworked by many over the centuries, including evolutionists seeking a pattern for life’s diversity. More likely Darwin’s drawing was his attempt to flesh out the concept he had been given with organisms he knew. What was new, as Talking Squid points out, is that Darwin included dead ends, a fundamental part of his natural selection concept.
But the tree concept is quite natural (no pun intended) when one begins categorizing anything. Take for example the rocks in my back yard. I can categorize them by type of material of which they are made, resulting in purer constancies being arranged around the edge (farther apart) and less distinct ones being toward the middle (and closer together). If I categorize them by shape, the same will happen, with round in the middle and all manner of shapes branching off at the edges. Whenever there are a variety of features to be considered (whether they be among organisms, sports equipment, or casseroles), distinct features become branches and commonalities become trunks. If you add the assumption that whatever-they-are evolved from each other, then a tree of origins can be easily had, at least at a tersery glance. Here is another difference between Darwin and many other uses of the Tree of Porphyry. Darwin was not seeking a metaphor. He was seeking real origins. Here I part with Talking Squid: the Tree of Life is not a metaphor to an evolutionist, if they in fact are seeking and believing in real, common origins.
If the categories of whatever didn’t actually evolve from each other, then the devil will be in the details. A closer look at the featureless (impure) rocks in my backyard will reveal that the ones with least distinct features actually have more variety in internal elements.
Interestingly enough, the same thing happens when one attempts to categorize life, except that the devil is not only complexity, but also differentiation. This is easily seen in at least three ways:
First, we have learned that small does not always mean less complex, as Aristotle had supposed when he first posited spontaneous generation. Single-celled organisms are still cells, complete with DNA, cell walls, etc., except they are often capable of more functions than cells of “higher” life forms, such as across-species transfer of DNA components.
Second, features can be found in common when common ancestry is impossible. One well-known example is the octopus, which is a mollusk with an eye quite similar to that of a human’s, except it works better than ours in filtered light. This is why Doolittle’s “tree of life” looks more like a banyan tree, which by the way, has multiple trunks only because it drops them DOWN from branches, not the other way around.
Third, on the most fundamental levels organisms are not more similar. They are more different. Archeans (archi-bacteria) are not just simple bacteria, they have an entirely different DNA language for reproduction than do bacteria. Biologically speaking, archeans are more different from bacteria than are you, the reader, from yeast.
The implications are pretty clear that where life is concerned common origin is an imposed concept on a natural phenomenon. The difficulty in accepting this would seem to stem from the requirement that there be no designer. It is too suggestive that it could be not just a designer but the Designer, even though ID never goes there.

Posted in History, Science and faith | No Comments »

October 3, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Have you met Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus), your “newest oldest ancestor?” Friday’s Wall Street Journal has a full article and slide show online about this fossil find from Ethiopia.
I never cease to be amazed at how every few years a new fossil ancestor is found for humans. Each time it is older, and every time it is closer to our split-off from other primates. Hence, Ardi is our “newest oldest.” I would encourage any reader to carefully decide if they are being led to conclusions by “experts,” when their personal logic might conclude otherwise.
First, do the scientists have any reason to want these fossils to be our ancestors? Yes, they are more likely to get grants, publicity, promotion, and status among peers if they find our newest oldest ancestor. This of course does not in itself say the information is less than accurate, but I suggest it does make me want to review the claims less credulously. Now let’s review:
The slideshow provides excellent images of the fossils and their reconstructions. Slide 1 shows the bone structure of the foot. No, not the hand, the foot. It is obviously prehensile. Remember, the claim is that these bones represent the closest relative to both humans and monkeys. Move on to Slide 3 for a look at the hand. The caption says, “Ardi, unlike apes and chimps, had supple writs, strong thumbs, flexible fingers and power-grip palms shaped to grasp objects like sticks and stones firmly.” Note that the bones of Ardi’s fingers are curved and combine to form a major curve, as is true for all climbing monkeys. Don’t take my word for it. Compare the fingers of a human hand with those of various climbing monkeys in these pictures. Ardi’s fingers are indeed designed for grasping objects like sticks.. in particular, tree branches.
Moving along to Slide 4: “Ardi and her relatives, the researchers say, made their home in the woods, not on Africa’s open savannah grasslands long considered the main area of human development. Their distinctive pelvis suggests they walked easily enough.” Notice how easily enough Ardi is pictured walking on a tree branch, which accommodates the foot thumb more readily than flat ground. Note also that the pelvis of tree monkeys in general is designed to allow movement of the legs straight forward for climbing, yes, unlike gorillas and chimps, which are primarily ground dwellers.
Now consider Slide 7 where you will find a rendering of how these scientists picture Ardi. Notice that the most human features are the upper arms, shoulders, and torso. Slide 9 tells us how fragmented the bones of the skill and pelvis were without comment on how likely the scientists are to have gotten the assembly right; and in Slide 10 we are finally shown just how many bones were used to construct our “ancestor.” Notice which bones are present and more to the point, which are missing. Let us not forget that the most human part of Lucy was her feet, which were never found. It seems that the less data we have, the more human the parts must be.
Thinking for myself, I have not come to the same conclusions as the experts about Ardi’s place in human ancestry. What do you think? What you think really is more important than what you are told.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ~ Galileo Galilei

Posted in Notable Quotes, Science and faith | No Comments »