January 24, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

Two days ago one of my online students emailed me that the Excel software that I make available to them would not open properly. I checked, and yes, the most recent version posted for them had somehow been corrupted. It opened in a way that could not be viewed full-screen, and would not accept data entries. I don’t know how this happened, but I quickly replaced it with a slightly older backup version.
I originally designed this particular software as a case study for my students about 12 years ago, and I have improved it almost every term since then. Students seem to continually find new ways to do it wrong, so I continually add failsafe responses to get them back on track. It has become quite complex, and very user friendly, but always by my design. Over those 12 years copies have become corrupted many times, but I am yet to have a corruption be an advantage to my students. As far as I can tell, no corruption has ever increased the software’s capacity to do anything, useful or not. They have only reduced capacities. I do find however, that the more complex I develop my software to be, the more easily it can be corrupted. There is more to corrupt, and less chance of it functioning after the corruption. Complexity increases vulnerability, and corruption shuts down function.
And yet the complexity of anything I program, or anybody else programs, for that matter, is so simple compared with the programming we find in DNA. When I think about it, it is incredible that any DNA programming became more complex or useful without design, or that corruption in DNA could do anything except make it less functional. And the only way a person could possibly think that chance evolution has improved DNA after experiencing computer programming is for indoctrination to have shut down thinking.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 11, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

Today Google commemorates the 374th birthday of Nicolas Steno, rightfully labeling him as the founder of modern geology. Wikipedia’s article correctly credits Steno with developing the first three principles of geological strata.
I once sat in a geology class where the teacher taught that Steno developed five principles, including that the layers of earth represent millions of years of earth history. The millions of years was actually added by Charles Lyell, devout atheist and mentor of Charles Darwin. Steno’s principles instead emphasize the role of water in depositing layers, because he saw the layers as the result of a world-wide flood as described in the Bible. Steno’s principles lead to prediction of coal deposits and the advancement of industry. Lyell’s addition of age to the equation adds to theory, but not necessarily to advancement in any practical way.

Posted in History, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 9, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

I did a study of the word “love” as it appears in the Qur’an. I don’t speak Arabic, and of course any Muslim will tell you that the Qur’an can only be studied in Arabic. None the less, I think there is something to be gained from considering an English rendering. The one I used can be at this date found online at http://jannah.org/quran/. I understand that there may be several Arabic words variously translated as “love” in English, which might by another linguist have been translated as like, desire, affection, etc., but considering every one of them still seems to reveal a pattern.
I found the word “love” to be rendered 83 times in this translation. The 83 are scattered across the 114 surah (chapters) of the Qur’an. Compare this to 49 uses of the word “love” in just the 5 chapters of 1 John. It appears that the word is much more important in Christianity than it is in Islam. Indeed, two of the uses in the Qur’an are in reference to Christians, one of them chiding Christians for assuming too much of God’s love.
Surah 5:18 “Jews and Christians are wrong to say God loves them, because God punishes sin.”
Surah 5:82 “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’.”
There also seems to be a difference in the way the word “love” is used in the Qur’an. Of the 83 uses in the Qur’an, 21 are references to what God loves, 22 to what He does not love, 7 to man’s love toward God, and 33 to other objects of man’s love; and 20 of those 33 refer to man loving the wrong things. All in all, about equal space is dedicated to what man should and should not love and what God loves and does not love. Every reference I found in the Qur’an to what God loves was based on man’s behavior or man’s initiation of love toward God. As an example of “love” consider three uses in Surah 3:31-32.
Surah 3.31 Say: “If ye do love God, Follow me: God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Surah 3.32 Say: “Obey God and His Apostle”: But if they turn back, God loveth not those who reject Faith.
I found no references to God initiating love toward man. Every verse that says God loves, is predicated on man first doing something to receive love as a response, and I found no verses to suggest that God’s love could thereafter not be lost. (Mohammed himself boasted no assurance that his soul was secured. Surah 26.82). I take this to mean that God, the Creator, only loves in response to man, the created.
This is in total contrast with the Bible, which says “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Indeed, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). He is the source of love, not us.
“Love” in the Bible is also defined differently. In English I might say I love mashed potatoes, but that merely means that I really like the pleasant sensation I have when I consume them. My love for them is conditional upon what I get from them, and in no way considers any benefit to the potatoe. In the Bible, love from God is defined as unconditional, for “neither death nor life, nor angles, not principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth nor any other created thing shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39). Since I am a created thing, the verse suggests that I can do nothing to quench God’s love for me. Nor can you. What is more, the “loving-kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 103:17). The end of this verse is typically translated, “to those who fear Him.” This is not like the Greek (New Testament) word for fear, which means anticipation of punishment. This Hebrew word for fear includes realizing total dependence on His mercy, realizing we can do nothing to earn, dissuade, or affect it in any way.
This is the part most difficult to swallow—we can do nothing. That is why many people who call themselves Christians in practice more resemble Muslims, feeling compelled to add something to the formula to gain or maintain a right position with God. But grace plus anything is no longer grace. If the Bible is true, then the only thing that man must add is acceptance of what is freely offered and already completed.
Toward the Qur’an, the only logical response is to serve in hopes of approval. Toward the Bible, the only logical response is to relax, and serve out of gratitude for what is secured.

Posted in Comparative religion | No Comments »

November 6, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Language is an indicator of culture, and I hear married couples unintentionally giving ground in the culture war. The word “spouse” is handy for referring to unspecified married partners, just as “sibling” is useful in referring to either a brother or sister. When addressing a mixed audience, I might say, “Take time to talk with your spouse.” I might use the plural when addressing a mixed audience about our spouses. But why would I ever say anything about “my spouse?” I am a male. My wife is a female. She is my wife—a much more specific term. “When addressing an entire audience of married women, I should speak of their husbands, not their spouses. I don’t remember hearing this generic term substituted for husband or wife in decades past, but now I hear it much too often on and off stage. Why does it matter? Aren’t people just being lazy in their speech? I don’t think so. Who wants to blur the lines about whether a male is married to a female or that a female is married to a male? If I allow the terms “wife” and “husband” to drop from my vocabulary, I have taken a giant step backwards from valuable ground in the culture war.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

October 23, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Some philosophers and/or scientists today argue that the mind is the product of the brain. This is a natural corollary to their presupposition that only the material exists. But I wonder if they have stopped to consider that the only way they are aware of the material is through their minds. It would therefore be more logical to argue that the mind is the origin of the brain and all things material. It is the beginning of all experience, material or not.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

August 26, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

On August 18, 2011 Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry was asked by a young boy, “How old do you think the earth is?” That one blind-sided him, but he figured out that the mom had put the boy up to the question and replied with his view of the teaching options offered in his state of Texas—evolution and creationism. Not exactly right, but he had short notice. I’ve had plenty of time to think about it, and though I’m not running, interested in running, or capable of running, I think the best answer would be, “It doesn’t really matter what I think on that question, son. What matters is that you have the opportunity in school to think for yourself on the evidence and make up your own mind.” Most kids don’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

July 31, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

About a month ago my wife and I went to a therapist in The Big City next door. We knew nothing about light therapy, but were willing to check out this “alternative medicine.” We are OK with exploring such things, realizing that thousands of years of experimenting with plants and exercises should produce some treatments of value, regardless of the explanations given to them by their providers. I, for one, have found an exercise similar to tai chi to relieve me from ever going back to an MD or chiropractor for back pain.
But back to my story: As we waited in her office-home, I first noticed the raw crystals on the shelves. (I’m a rock hound.) Then my wife pointed out the religious symbols on the walls and spiritual books and pictures, most having reference to crystals or Taoism. When I asked the therapist about her personal belief system, she replied, “Oh, I embrace all religions.” Funny, I didn’t see any crosses among the symbolism. She is a pantheist, which means “all-god,” or “all-the-gods,” or even “all-is-god.” No one, including pantheists who claim to, can embrace everyone else’s beliefs when some of those other beliefs say they are the only way. Even other religions that say they respect Christ as a great prophet (along with Mohammed) or among the appearances of god (along with Krishna) do not include the cross; because the cross has one meaning—There must be a substitutionary payment for each person’s short-fall before a perfect God.
That statement is huge. It includes that there is one and only one absolute and just God, who desires a relationship with us enough to pay a cost we cannot overcome any other way than His personal payment. Some religions say Christ is or was a god, but that does not distinguish them. Some say Christ made the first or major payment for sin, and then we must keep our end of the bargain or it’s all for naught; but that does not make them unique or distinct. There is one and only one “religion,” if we can even call it that, that says we are entirely incapable of earning any part of favor with God (OK, or a right relation to the universe). Why is that so distinct? It flies against human nature to not earn the ultimate prize. Why would any human make that up? They wouldn’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

July 8, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

A Muslim friend asked me that question after lunch together one day. It seems to wrangle Muslims that Christians should be so presumptuous as to refer to the One and Only God as a relative, as if there could be anyone near His equal. To suggest that the one true God has a partner is the unforgivable Islamic sin called “shirk,” and is denounced in no uncertain terms in many parts of the Qur’an (for instance, Surah 4:48 and 116).
To reply to my friend that the Bible tells us to refer to Him as Father in prayer (Matthew 6:9) would neither satisfactorily answer his question nor endear him to my source.
A better explanation is that the question is really backwards:
God is not my father in the sense of bloodline, and He is indeed without peer, predecessor, or sequel (Isaiah 43:10-11). God does not fall under our definition of father, because He existed before fathers were invented. On the contrary, He invented fathers to help us understand a little bit how He feels about us.
I should have said to my friend, “You are a father. How do you feel about your children? Do you love them? Do you want them to grow up healthy? to do well in life? Do you do for them what they ask or what they need? Do you discipline them for their own good? Would it hurt for your child to turn away from you? Can the positive response of one of my children make up for the turning away of another?”
God is not my father, but He says to use that word toward Him as the closest approximation from our experience to grasp the awesome way He feels about each of us (Psalm 103:13).
Christians do not commit shirk, because they do not consider themselves to be God’s equal; we don’t even consider ourselves worthy to be in His presence. The right to have any relationship at all with Him must be a pure, unmerited gift, only possible if He makes it available to us (John 1:12). To think that by my attitude or action I could earn any meager level of merit before God… That would be to put an upper limit on God’s greatness above us. To me, that would be shirk.

Posted in Comparative religion | No Comments »

June 1, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Recently yet another person said to me, “Well, we believe that man is basically good.” He was contrasting his religion with mine. (I guess he didn’t realize that many people who claim to be of my religion think the same as he does.)
My first thought was to say, “Basically good compared to what?” The response to that would of course be, “What do you mean, ‘compared to what?’” This would allow me to continue: “’Good’ is a comparative word, for example, tall, taller, tallest; or fat v. thin; or high v. low. So, man is basically good compared to what? A porpoise, that plays with its food before it kills it, or a black widow spider, that eats its suitor after it mates?”
The only answer to that is, “No, compare to standards of behavior.” If the standards of behavior are set by men, then of course he is good compared to his own wishy-washy standards. What ‘good’ is that comparison? If you mean compared with the standards of God, be it the Bible, Qur’an, or some other religious book, then you have a problem: Is God perfect or not? Is His standard perfect or not? I am not perfect, and no one who has ever said to me “man is basically good” should claim to be perfect. To say that “man is basically good” is a veiled argument for “God should be OK with my performance, even though I’m not perfect.” Well. that is paramount to saying God is wishy-washy about His own standard.
I said, “My first thought was to say..” because I don’t think it is the best response. A better response would be to begin with a definition of God: “Is God perfect? Is God just? Is God righteous?” Then comes, “I am not perfect. Are you?”
If you or I are to ever have a relationship with God, then somehow a payment for our shortfall must be made, however slight we think it is. Suppose a parent tells their child not to run through the house. Then the child runs through the house and knocks over a lamp, braking it. The child says “I’m sorry,” and the parent says, “I forgive you.” End of story? Who paid for the broken lamp? Being forgiven does not pay for the lost lamp. Paddling the child does not replace the lamp? It’s still gone. Even if the old lamp is not replaced, the cost has occurred, and will be borne by someone. Either the child pays for it or the parent pays for it.
If I run through life and break any part of God’s law, there are only a few options for me to have a relationship with God:
I pay for it, God pays for it, or God is not just and righteous.
I can’t pay for it. Which of the other two options makes the most since? There is only one religion where God pays, and many who claim to be of that religion haven’t really accepted the One who has paid.

Posted in Comparative religion | 1 Comment »

May 1, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

After warning an audience against buying into Darwinian evolution too easily, I overheard someone in the audience say, “Well, I guess we could just scrap all progress and throw out evolution. (The sarcasm was obviously meant for me to overhear.) She didn’t realize how opposite the truth really is.
Take for instance the current case of the dune sagebrush lizard, or sand dune lizard (sceloporus arenicolus), proposed for the endangered species list by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. If it becomes classified as endangered, then its habitat becomes “protected,” and economic progress stops.
Don’t get me wrong. I love lizards, and enjoyed catching and keeping his cousin the eastern fence swift (sceloporus undulates) when I was a kid growing up in Alabama. They are found all over the southeast, and are very similar, as is the Western fence swift (Sceloporus occidentalis ), found from Texas to California, and the sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), found everywhere between Texas and Idaho.
And that’s my point: One word you will find in all the above citations except the Fish & Wildlife report is “common.” We are holding up progress for a lizard that has abundant replacements.
Some scientists make a living by identifying “species,” even naming them after themselves on occasion, without ever drawing up a clear definition of what a “species” really is. They leave us with the mistaken impression that every species is unique, took millions of years to “evolve” (another poorly defined word), and is irreplaceable. In fact each of these lizards only differ by concentrations of certain options (alleles) in the same genomic structure. It’s like pigmentation differences in humans, and we are not different species for it.
It seems strange to me that scientists are all about clarification until it comes to these two terms, species and evolution. If the clarification there would be faced and dealt with, we could then get some real progress in other areas. Why not do it? Because once those terms became clear, then Darwinian evolution itself might become an endangered species.

Posted in Politics, Science and faith | 2 Comments »