November 24, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

“Climate Emails Stoke Debate” is the headline for this subject in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, but it illustrates the even deeper problem that continually threatens science. I refer particularly to the quote by George Rebovich: “Any group with such a single-minded view (whether they are believers in global warming, global warming rejectionists, liberals, conservatives, whatever) bears close watching and a certain amount of skepticism.”
I like his use of the phrase “believers in,” because that is at the heart of the issue. Once a group convinces themselves to believe in some one view, they have a hard time self-policing their integrity. It doesn’t even have to be intentional. Read the whole article. Is it really true that each science journal “evaluates papers solely on scientific merit,” or is it possible that a belief system can stifle opposing data from being published publication? What if you through into the mix that careers and fortunes (grants) are at risk? The climate issue is pretty new. How much more so should we expect this phenomenon with biological and chemical origins?

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 | 1 Comment »

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 »