Archive for September, 2006

Fossil child of culture

Friday, September 29th, 2006

There is much buzz in the media recently about a fossil juvenile found in Ethiopia. It was found five years ago, but this month it is announced in the science journal Nature, and in November there will be a major article in National Geographic. I find it interesting that this Australopithecus afarensis is so frequently referred to as a “child.” This is a word typically reserved for human babies—you are unlikely to read of a baby chimp referred to as a “child,” yet many articles acknowledge that the skull is like that of a chimp, and the shoulder blade is like that of a gorilla. This is the reverse tactic used in the abortion debate—those in support of abortion speak of the fetus, while those who are pro-life speak of the unborn child.

Even though apparently all the new evidence on this more complete version of “Lucy” indicates the animal was more monkey-like than human-like, the term child persists. Also notice in the article linked above that the picture of the fossil is full-face, which minimizes the monkey-like depth of the skill, more obvious in this second article. Articles also emphasize that the knees and hips indicate that the animal walked upright, like a man. (Chimps have bowed legs, designed to distribute weight across four limbs, while humans have knees positioned directly under the mass of the central body. I found no articles that mention that tree-climbing apes, such as the spider monkey, have the same knee and hip structure.) If you don’t mind registering with them, check out the NY Times article. Scroll down to the second picture, and you will see not only the elongated skull, but a drawing of the skeleton underneath, revealing that the fingers hung down below the knees, like all tree-climbing apes, yet there seems to be debate whether the “child” “also climbed trees,” besides walking upright on the ground.

Though I’ve enjoyed hunting and studying fossils from childhood, I am neither an anthropologist nor a paleontologist, but I am a sociologist, and I’m making a cultural observation: Evidence is presented in the media from one position only—evolution MUST be true, therefore all fossils MUST support evolution in some way.

Science with an accent

Tuesday, September 26th, 2006

To say we should have science with no religious position is like saying we should speak English without an accent. If you vocally form a word, you must accent it in some way. The truth is we all have an accent. You hear it in others, but not in yourself. The same is true with science. You can no more have a view of science without a religious position than you can speak English without an accent. You just may be unaware of the religious view you have, yet hear one in others whose view differs from your own. The bias in most textbooks is that everything must have a material cause; even why a thing exists must have a material cause. In other words, there is no God Who ever has, ever would, or ever could intervene in the affairs of the universe. How do you know that? It is based on assumptions (that you cannot prove or disprove) about the nature of God and the universe. That by definition is a religious view. The real question is therefore not wheter we should keep the textbooks religion-free, as some would argued. The real question is whether we should foster textbooks that posit only one religious position. To do so is not separation of church and state. It is the truest violation of that separtion—our state is promoting one religious view at the exclusion of all others

Facts v. Theories

Sunday, September 17th, 2006

“I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.” Sherlock Holmes to Dr. Watson, Chapter one of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Truth v Intelligence

Sunday, September 17th, 2006

In the Devine Comedy, Dante encounters Virgil, the Roman poet, who volunteers to help him find his way to God. But Virgil, who represents human reason, can only lead him the first part of the way, and then must turn Dante over to Beatrice, who represents divine love. At the first level of Anti-Purgatory, when Virgil’s part is near completion, he says “She must be your lamp between truth and mere intelligence” (Dante, Purgatorio, Canto VI, 47-48). Intelligence and reason, if we are honest, can lead us to an acceptance of God’s existence, but they cannot explain the love of God that offers salvation.

First cause, second cause

Saturday, September 16th, 2006

OK, this one is deep. If you are not up for “deep,” please come back and join me another day.

Scientists today honor Francis Bacon, and evolutionists applaud him, because he was one of the first to strongly and logically defend that religion should not hamper science. Here is that 1606 quote from Advancement of Learning, Second Book: “..Aristotle and Plato; whereof both intermingled final causes, the one as a part of theology, and the other as a part of logic, which were the favourite studies respectively of both those persons. Not because those final causes are not true, and worthy to be inquired, being kept within their own province; but because their excursions into the limits of physical causes hath bred a vastness and solitude in that tract.”

OK, that was supposed to be an English version, but allow me to paraphrase:
“Aristotle and Plato led us astray by mixing first and second causes in their science. Religion may be true, but if we let religious explain physical phenomena, then we will never nail down things we want to understand.”

By “first cause” Bacon (and Aristotle) meant the purpose of things, and “second causes” are the cause-and-affect relations that science seeks to discover. Now let me paraphrase the next quote, only a couple of sentences later in the same text, before I give it to you word for word: ” God is the ultimate cause (first cause) of everything, but from all our experience we must assume that there is also a cause within physics (second cause) that we can detect and measure, regardless of God’s intent, and finding those causes does not negate or detract in any way from the fact that God is behind it all, because He uses His natural laws to do His will.” (So if you trust me, you can skip the next direct quote.)

“Neither doth this call in question, or derogate from divine providence, but highly confirm and exalt it. For as in civil actions he is the greater and deeper politique, that can make other men the instruments of his will and ends, and yet never acquaint them with his purpose, so as they shall do it and yet not know what they do, than he that imparteth his meaning to those he employeth; so is the wisdom of God more admirable, when nature intendeth one thing, and providence draweth forth another..”

He was attempting to persuade the believing community that it does not mean God didn’t do it, just because we find a material explanation. Many Christians today accept this to mean that religion should not be invoked to explain what science is designed to do. I have no problem with that, but what if the reverse is attempted?

Today “science” is used to explain material origins—something for which science (cause-and-affect experimentation) was not intended. Remember that when Bacon said “first cause” he meant purpose, i.e., why something began. Today when scientists say “first cause” they mean the event that led to all subsequent events, i.e., how something began, but when you are trying to explain the origin of matter and energy (physics) you automatically move into metaphysics (what exists and affects us beyond matter and energy). Today, as in Bacon’s day, we call that religion. Some scientists are trying to explain the origin of the universe—the original cause of matter and energy—without allowing a non-material explanation. This amounts to is a reversal. Science is being invoked to explain a theological issue, and God is not allowed to be a consideration. Cause-and-affect is incapable of explaining an original cause, because something (in this case, matter and energy) cannot cause itself. The answer? Matter and energy began from nothing. No observation can defend that. That does not make logical sense. That was not Bacon’s intent. To believe it requires an act of faith.

The more I read Francis Bacon, the better I like him. Sure, he had a few off-the-wall ideas, like thinking that God would use science to rid the world of sin via technology (in his Sci-Fi, New Atlantis), but in the same book he also expressed his personal conviction that God created the universe in 6 days. Funny he should be invoked to defend the separation of science and religion.

Evolution as religion

Sunday, September 10th, 2006

In his book The World’s Living Religions, Archie Bahm dedicates Chapter 14 to Humanism. “Are there any beliefs common to the doctrines of all those who call themselves ‘Humanists’? First, regarding the universe, Humanists are naturalistic. The universe is natural. It acts in accordance with its own nature and is not influenced by anything outside it. The universe includes everything, so there can be nothing external to it to influence it. It is self-contained, self-sufficient, and self-caused…” (p. 336). This is a religious position, taking a stance about the nature of God. The chapter makes clear the author’s conclusion that humanism is religion, and that like all great religions, it has a creation myth, based on Darwinism. This is not a fluke. Evolution is coming more and more out of the closet with its religious agenda, as evidenced by Evolution Ashram.

Evolution of evolution

Tuesday, September 5th, 2006

I intend to regularly update a file I call The Evolution of Evolution. It is simply a webpage of my discovery of historical events that seem relevant to the science-faith debate. I began this file many years ago to help with my own understanding of why the debate is so hot. I have discovered that the roots are deep, and most of the players, on both sides (and I’m not sure there are only two sides), seem to be unaware of the forces that play on them. I will regularly update this file, as I am constantly coming across new facts that lend me insight.

Dogma v. science

Sunday, September 3rd, 2006

“They who have presumed to dogmatize on nature, as on some well investigated subject, either from self-conceit or arrogance, and in the professorial style, have inflicted the greatest injury on philosophy and learning. For they have tended to stifle and interrupt inquiry exactly in proportion as they have prevailed in bringing others to their opinion; and their own activity has not counterbalanced the mischief they have occasioned by corrupting and destroying that of others.” Francis Bacon, first sentences of the Preface to Novum Organum, 1620. Though I can’t agree with Bacon on everything (for one thing, science has advanced since his writing), I can support much of his philosophy about the proper relation of science (natural philosophy) and religion. I take his theme throughout this piece to be that any predetermined viewpoint, used to stifle the investigation of natural causes, hurts not only learning but a proper understanding of God, because all truth is ultimately God’s truth (Advancement of Learning, First Book, Section VI-1).

My mistakes of faith

Sunday, September 3rd, 2006

While in my PhD program I completely lost my belief in God–not because of the facts, but because of the cultural environment. You can read about my experience in this article. I have now recovered, and am passionate about the abuse I experienced.