July 20, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Have you been following the science news recently about
Homo floresiensis, sometimes referred to as the Hobbit? Some science
news sources refer to this short too-maker as " another
human species" or even just " human-like,"
yet the name "Homo" means human. Some say the find
can all be explained by evolution theory, while others are more open about the
controversy.

This last reference points out that the dating clearly
places the bones within our own (Homo sapiens) time, yet comparisons are
made with fossils, human and not, dated millions of years ago. Homo
floresiensis was buried with advanced tools, no sign of other humans around,
had a cranial shape that justifies analytical thinking, and must have gotten to
the isle of Flores by navigation. The only problem is the credibility of a
person three feet tall. So what?

Why can’t they just be recognized as short people, as in this
photo? Is the difference any greater than that between a
Chihuahua and a Great Dane? The only reason all domestic dogs are considered
to be the same species is that we watched the breading take place in modern
history. It doesn’t mean that they are two different species or even that they
are in the process of becoming two different species. They are just swimming in
different corners of the same gene pool.  Because evolutionists must find
differences to justify crossing from one species to another, we are led down
these rabbit trails that have never led to discovery, but have led to the
justification of one human mistreating another.
Humans is humans. Enjoy the variety.

Posted in History, Science and faith | No Comments »

July 13, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

If parents don’t raise their kids, then television and computer games will. TV & game writers are not interested in moral character and wise society, only in addictive viewing, that is, passivity. Passivity is unfit for democracy, but works very well in a dictatorship. Where are we going, if we don’t direct ourselves?

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | No Comments »

July 6, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

On July 1, with amazingly little press, Louisiana passed
the first-ever law to protect teachers who wish to add scientific criticism to a
curriculum that requires the teaching of evolution. It’s called the Louisiana
Science Education Act, and here is the full text.

Regardless of press acknowledgment, this is quite a
landmark, It passed by a large majority, but I personally have worked in one state for five years to
get a law with similar purpose
on the books, and many other states have attempted and failed.

That being the case, one might rightly ask, "If it’s so
hard to get passed, why did it pass with such a high vote?" In my experience a
bill with similar purpose passed every committee vote but one, and that was a
tie. It passes, because senators know that their constituencies would have them
vote for it, but the trick is that it seldom gets to the floor for a vote. If an
item is hotly divisive, even with majority support, legislators work hard behind
the scenes to keep it from coming to a vote. One or two people can lock down the
entire process. I have watched this process first hand, too many times.

Now that it’s passed, the local newspaper represented the passage as if Louisiana has gone out on a lonely
limb, even though the paper had good information
to the contrary. Those who oppose it, bemoan it as "anti-evolution,"
even though it specifically states, "A teacher shall teach the material
presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter
may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help
students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an
objective manner." Apparently they consider analysis after presentation to be
threatening. Threatening what?

In any case, this suppression of facts and distortion of
the law are perfect examples of why teachers in every state need protection if
they are to simply "analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an
objective manner."

Posted in Politics, Science and faith | No Comments »

June 29, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

A few weeks ago I said I’d return to the site that used the
term " universal acid" to refer to evolution’s "power" to eat away all opposing
arguments. It’s time.

The quote is from Daniel Dennett, and this particular web incorporates several ideas from
one of his books. Dennett is a strong evolutionist, but prefers to couch his
position about God as a benevolent acceptance that some people need God. This
particular site is more straightforward in positing that evolution removes ALL
need for God. Indeed, the purpose of the site is not to promote evolution as
much as to discredit God. Those who think evolution and the Bible are compatible
have yet to take one or the other, or both, seriously. This site does, and
begins its slideshow clearly stating its objective–to use evolution to make
"no room for God."

After supporting its position with quotes from those who
agree with their thesis, the next step is thestraw man approach: The
third slide positions all belief in fixity of species as Christian
(portrayed as the sum of all non-believers in evolution), even though it admits
that the idea originally came to Christendom via Aristotle. It also acknowledges
no other alternative to evolution for "Christians" than fixity of species than
fixity of species, even though Edward
Blyth, a Christian, first suggested to Darwin the idea of variance within
species. 

Slide four defines creationism as "the idea that God
created all species in their current form a few hundred years ago." I am aware
of no one who believes animals originated a few hundred years ago, much less the
major creationism proponents. And the major ones all agree that variation occurs
from generation to generation.

On slide five they begin their explanation of Darwin with natural selection as "Darwin’s most original contribution to biology." I must return to Blyth: in
1835 he published an article
in the Magazine of Natural History, in which he explains the principle of
natural selection, though not using the term: “It is a general law of nature,
for all creatures to propagate the like of themselves: and this extends even to
the most trivial minutiae, to the slightest peculiarities; and thus, among
ourselves, we see a family likeness transmitted from generation to generation.
When two animals are matched together, each remarkable for a certain
peculiarity, no matter how trivial, there is also a decided tendency in nature
for that peculiarity to increase, and if the produce of these animals be set
apart, and only those in which the same peculiarity is most apparent, be
selected to breed from, the next generation will possess it in a still more
remarkable degree; and so on, till at length the variety I designate a breed is
formed, which may be very unlike the original type.” (Eiseley, Loren C.
1959. Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection.
Proceedings of American Phil. Society.103(1059), 94-158, as reprinted in
Loren Eiseley’s Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X, 1979, New York: E. P.
Dutton, pp 55-56).

 The next couple of slides are dedicated to explaining
natural selection as the key to evolution. (I must interject here that you
cannot select anything unless something is there from which to select. There is no
discussion of where the something came from.)

Pages eight
through ten take on Design with Paley as the key witness, ignoring any design
arguments that have been developed in the past 150 years. In all, no formidable
arguments are presented for or against evolution. The only presentation is
opinions that favor their view.

My point here is not whether evolution is true or false,
but that the position is argued for religious reasons in some cases. Whether it
is in most or all cases, please consider the honesty of the arguments. That
honesty is crucial, and most obvious in disclosure of real facts, not quotes of
the opinions of others.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

June 23, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I recently became aware of a book by  Helen Epstein entitled "The
Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." In good
journalist style Epstein documents the drop in AIDS cases in Uganda during the
mid-80’s and 90’s, and goes to learn for herself if there is an answer to the
world crisis. She finds one, and nobody is talking about it. At a conference a
couple of years ago I met a man recently retired from the CDC in Atlanta. I
asked if he was involved in AIDS research at the CDC, and indeed he was. I then
asked him to comment on the Ugandan phenomenon, and he didn’t know what I was
talking about. He was intrigued to hear that there was a significant drop in
infection for a decade there, but I think also a little incredulous. Why was he
hearing of this for the first time from someone outside the Center? I was asking
myself the same question.

The CDC has good information on AIDS and
transmission of HIV, but you have to read between the lines to get what is
actually happening. It begins with the following:

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by
sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who
is infected, or, less commonly (and now very rarely in countries where blood is
screened for HIV antibodies), through transfusions of infected blood or blood
clotting factors. Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before
or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.

OK, so HIV is spread by sex, needles, blood transfusion,
during pregnancy, delivery, and breast feeding, six basic ways. Research has
documented many ways in which HIV is NOT spread, and these include casual
kissing, skin contact, mosquitoes,
pets , and toilet seats. It has rarely occurred by French kissing or biting,
and that was in the case of blood transfer.

It only spreads through the transfer of infected body
fluids. Which ones?"HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood,
semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears." Six body fluids, and the
article later makes clear that they are listed in the order in which
concentration is found. The fluids must be living, human fluids. Once the fluid
dries, it can not infect. It cannot reproduce itself outside of a host human.
(That’s why it’s called HUMAN Immunodeficiency Virus.) Environmental transmission
is "essentially zero." Finding the source of the epidemic requires some
detective work, but is quite logical.

"Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown
to result in transmission of HIV," so we are down to blood, semen, vaginal
fluid, and breast milk. Blood transfusions are quite safe now, because the virus
is relatively large and easy to filter from collected blood. Dirty needles are
used primarily in illegal contexts, so the epidemic is essentially traceable to
sexual contact.

It is a tragedy that some infants are born HIV positive or
catch it from the birth process or nursing. We need to find cures for their
sake, if no other, but this is not the infection responsible for the world-wide
epidemic. How did the mother become HIV positive?

Research
indicates that "women are very unlikely to pass HIV on  to another woman in
any sexual contact." There is minuscule transfer of body fluid, and infected
vaginal fluid is relatively low in concentration. That means that if we are
tracing the epidemic, the transfer is from a male to the female via sexual
penetration. How did the male become HIV positive?

It is possible for a male to catch HIV from a female,
more-so if the male is uncircumcised, but the risk is still low.
That means that in terms of an epidemic the male got it from another male. How
did the male get it from another male? We know that anal penetration is the highest sexual risk. Add to this that one can only catch HIV from someone who has HIV, and we know the culprit of the epidemic is male-male anal sex with multiple partners.

By coming to male-male transfer we complete the
investigation, because the cycle is endless at this juncture: There would be no
epidemic if male-male sex with multiple partners was halted.

The above argument does not condemn homosexual behavior in
general: the logic is not based on religion or morality. Regardless, the
conclusion is politically incorrect, because it lays the blame on a behavioral
"right." I am not so naive as to think we can simply say "stop," and it is done.
Epstein proposes a social solution. But it is not being done. Something is wrong
when a society that gives a "right" to a behavior that hurts the society.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | 1 Comment »

June 20, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Last week NPR helped
celebrate the 20th anniversary of the discovery of prochlorococcus, the smallest
known organism to produce food by photosynthesis. And since it is responsible
for about 50% of photosynthesis, it is arguably the most abundant. As far as we
know, this guy is rock bottom of the food chain, being referred to as an
obligate phototroph. Let’s take that one at a time: obligate (essential)
phototroph (organism that produces its own food via photosynthesis). It is
essential for life on earth, at least as we know it, and it today produces about
1/5th of our oxygen. Though it contains only 2,000 genes, some scientists argue
that it is not the earliest form of life on earth, saying that its ancestor had to be a more
complicated cousin. Another interesting point, it only has about 60% of its
genes in common with its nearest known relatives. That’s less than you have in
common with a fish.

Allow me to think out load about this: All organisms must
survive by processing organic compounds that only come from organisms. In the
absence of all other organisms, the first organism must have produced its own
food, because by definition there would be no other source. The simplest known
food-producer, upon which we are dependent, requires 2.000 genes of DNA code,
and it is suspected of originating from something more complex. Also, it seems
that as we go "down" the "tree of life," the organisms are in many cases more
distinct from each other, not less. I don’t see us getting any closer to an
accidental (random) origin of life.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

June 9, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

After dinner tonight my wife sent me on a killing mission. We got the keys to our new house on Monday, and now we are in the process of making it “ours.” That includes cleaning up the yard. The house was immaculately kept, but the shrubbery area has been taken over by all manner of nameless vines and crawly things not sold in Lowe’s garden section. So, my wife said to wade in there with the Round-up and spray anything that is not in bloom. I don’t know the plants in this area, and I was afraid I might wipe out something that blooms later. The general assignment was that if something was questionable, I should ere on the side of death.
As I was carrying out this duty, I could not help but think of the many probes we humans have sponsored to find life, any form of it, on the moon, Mars, etc.; and here I am killing it indiscriminately. How excited we would get over finding any of this stuff anywhere but earth! The hope is based on the idea that if it happened here, it could happen somewhere else. The operative word here of course is “happened,” meaning random or chance. Yes, if it happened here by chance, then maybe it could happen somewhere else by chance, but there are no numbers that support the idea that it even happened here once by chance.
I am amazed at the intelligent people I know who are suckers for “chance.” I see the billboards that say, “I won $122,817 at ________’s, and you can, too!” And on the billboard is the picture of some poor slob who has probably already spent it trying to win more. I have heard the lottery referred to as a “tax on stupidity,” and in general I agree. But recently I attended a conference with a fellow professor, a dean, no less, who took advantage of the location to cross the boarder and buy lottery tickets. How could he fail to grasp that in order for somebody to win $122,817 a lot of somebodies had to blow $245,634? The industry is regulated that way! And then there is a former dean of mine who cannot retire because of a gambling addiction.
I am afraid that our academic failure to grasp and teach what chance (probability) really means is linked with the requirement of randomness in Darwinian theory. Because of the implications of the principles of probability upon chance mutation of species or the chance occurrence of spontaneous life in an ancient pond, the subject is avoided. When the probability of these is pointed out, it is quickly sloughed off with, “it only needed one chance.” It couldn’t be sloughed off if people really understood how many zeros must follow that one chance. Probability says that life didn’t happen by chance on earth, and if we find it anywhere else, it didn’t happen by chance there either.
Nobody believes that this jungle in my yard came by spontaneous generation, but many intelligent people believe that the first life on earth came that way ..and that they will eventually win the lottery.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

May 29, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Today we turn in our modem and won’t have computer access until after our house closes in our new state. I will therefore not be able to post to this blog until at least the middle of next week. Do NOT think there is nothing to blog about. See you then.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

May 26, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Evolutionists commonly suggest that Darwin’s theory of
evolution is neutral concerning God, but then contend that all objections to it
are by definition religious. I find this position fishy, and would suggest that
if one side of the argument must be religious, the other side by definition must
be, also. Evolutionists rarely acknowledge a difference between creationism
(belief in a creator and particular creation process to be accepted and defended
based upon religious texts) and intelligent design (the hypothesis of a designer
to be tested based on observable, and thus scientific evidence). May I suggest
that just as some people will not consider the possibility of Darwinian
evolution for religious reasons, so there are evolutionists who hold fast to
Darwinian evolution for religious reasons?

Recently I referred to a site that used the phrase "universal acid" to refer to Darwinian evolution’s power to erode away any need for
God. I would like to revisit that site to make clear the motives of those who
placed the information on the web. If you click on the website’s core name, http://www.mukto-mona.com/,
you will quickly be redirected to another page, http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/index.htm.
The words that you cannot read, because they appear and disappear to quickly,
are “Humanism & Secularism,” and “Secular site for freethinking, rational, humanists of
Bangladesh and other South Asian countries.” The purpose of the site is to
promote humanism (belief that humans are the ultimate beings) and secularism
(belief that there is no god), which the site posits are inseparable. That part, I agree with. The "universal acid" page is part of a series of pages ending with
Darwinism makes God unnecessary. This is indeed their purpose.

I will revisit this site again soon to walk through their
"logic" for the irrelevance of God, but for now let it suffice that defense of
evolution is not always with purely non-religious motive. Sometimes, the person
arguing for evolution may not even realize that they have bought into a
religious view that "science" must not only be objective about God, but also
devoid of conclusions about God. The truth is that any approach that begins with
qualifications on the conclusions about God and His roll in the process is not scientific. It’s religious.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

May 17, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

If global warming is so critical an issue today, why is not
more effort put into explaining it to people? I find little disagreement that
there is a warming trend world-wide or that it relates to the amount of CO₂
in the atmosphere. The debate seems to be over (#1) the cause, and (#2) should
we do something about it. Some would say, “Of course we should do something
about it! The ice caps are melting! The sea is rising! The
ocean conveyor belts might turn off!” Yes, the oceans have risen by about
0.6 inches recently, but we also know that the oceans were once much, much
lower, because we find
stalactites in underwater caverns, and stalactites only form in air, as
water evaporates from the ends of the columns. We also know that as CO₂
increases in the atmosphere, plant growth is stimulated. One of the “alarming”
signs of global warming is that
crops are growing in Greenland where they never grew before. Is that a
problem? Plants consumes CO₂ in the production of food for itself and
oxygen for us.

Maybe we should do something, but I’m still at Square 1:
What is causing it? One position is that we are. I see data online that our
fossil fuel consumption contributes to the total, but I would like to see a
comparison of our contribution with the total CO₂ that is out there.
What percentage of the whole do we contribute?

There is also a case that CO₂ content
follows warming, not the other way around. If that is the case, we can’t say
that CO₂ content causes the warming. If you watch that trailer it is
obvious that the producers have a political agenda behind presenting the data,
but don’t all presenters? Doesn’t the
CDIAC benefit with funding, if a “problem” must be monitored? (Financial
benefit to selective data is a subject I will probably write about later.)

Regardless of #1 or #2, CO₂ content in the air has
increased substantially in recent centuries. Has anybody put that fact
together with the concept of carbon-14 dating? Carbon-14 is a heavy form of
carbon (two extra neutrons in the nucleus), resulting from a reaction to cosmic
radiation in the upper atmosphere. Animals and plants take it in as air is
circulated down from the upper atmosphere, and the amount remains pretty much
stable until the organism dies. The molecule is unstable, and tends to
degenerate back to normal carbon(-12), so once the organism dies, the level
deteriorates at a predictable rate, suggesting that we can calculate how long
the organism has been dead. This would be valuable for computing dates for
bones, artifacts, etc. that defy written history, except that the ratio of
carbon-14 taken in depends on the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, and the
amount used to be substantially less than when the dating
rubrics were computed. That means all calculations based on carbon-14 are
suspect.

Global warming may or may not be our fault, and we may or
may not be able to do anything about it, but I am confident that we know less
about dating antiquity without the written word than most people think we know.

Posted in History | No Comments »