Archive for August, 2008

The momentum against logic and facts

Sunday, August 31st, 2008

Would we come up with the same theories if we started with
today’s facts and a blank theory slate? Yes, I know this is impossible, because
much of what we "know" is stated in terms of support for one theory or another.
But allow me to press on:

When Roe v. Wade occurred in 1973, the womb was a black box, and what was
actually going on in there was anybody’s guess. It was easier to talk in terms
of a woman’s rights as being the only rights involved. Today, with new
technology such as 4D
Ultrasound, we can literally see the live baby in motion, and the question
of rights is broadened. If we had had 4D Ultrasound in place before 1973, would
the case have been determined differently? I suggest that is quite likely, so
the next question is, why doesn’t it simply reverse the case now? The doctor who
agreed to allow filming that became The Silent Scream, after viewing what he had done, never again performed
another abortion. Perhaps some day there will be enough back lash to recognized
the rights of the yet-born, but there is a huge momentum to overcome. Think of
all the men and women who in ignorance, or upon the insistence of well-meaning
friends and family, or because of their own personal predicament "exercised
their rights." How are they to reconcile with themselves this evidence? To say
the law must be changed is to say "I have been wrong all these years." With
every abortion there is pressure to never look back, regardless of the mounting
facts. This is not necessarily intentional, it may not even be conscious; it is
just human nature. (It is not my point here, but I cannot go on without saying
that the only solution to this cognitive dissonance is the acceptance of
total forgiveness from a loving God.) It is not simply a latter of logic and
facts.

The same question could be asked of Darwinian evolution: If
the theory had not been proposed until today, with today’s facts, would the
theory be the slam dunk that evolutionists claim? It might have some traction,
but it could be well argued that it would not have the grip it now has on
scientific thinking. When Darwin published Origin of the Species, 
the cell was a jelly ball with a hard center, easily conceivable as just a hop,
skip, and a jump away from mud. Today we know that no cell exists without an
instruction booklet of no less than 400,000 letters. So, why not just drop it?
Because of the investment in the doctrine by huge numbers of scientists whose
reputations are on the line. How easy is it for scientists around the world to
simply say, "Oh well, I guess the last 30 years of my publications were wrong?"
The evidence for evolution is not overwhelming. It is just non-negotiable. This
is not necessarily intentional, in may not even be conscious; it is just human
nature. Will the tide some day turn? I really don’t know, because the problem is
not one of logic or facts.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Orgnizations v. Organisms

Sunday, August 24th, 2008

Recently on my You-Tube submission about my PhD process I made the following comment: “We
are allowed to say that an organization was designed by creative human minds,
but not so for the cell. Evolution says it occurred as an accumulation of
errors, even though it is much more complex and functional than any Fortune 500
company.”

The person with whom I was
corresponding replied: “Comparing living organisms to things that people design
and build, as creatinists [SIC] often do [SIC] makes for an extremely poor
analogy and weak argument from the creationist side. Reproduction is very unique
to life; objects that we produce do not reproduce themeselves [SIC], and if they
could they would evolve as computer models have demonstrated. Reproduction, the
success of which is heavily reliant on environmental conditions, is key to
evolution.”

I did not address this argument on You-Tube, because it was off the subject.
The subject was that the professors on
my dissertation committee would not hear me out on less-than-full endorsement of
Darwinian evolution, regardless of my arguments.

Even so, the question raised deserves discussion somewhere, so I’ll do it here:

There are three phenomenon that easily can be compared between the theory of evolution of organizations (called
population ecology in the organization science literature) and the theory of
evolution of organisms (particularly, Darwinian evolution). These are a) the
generation of new types, b) the survival or demise of types, and c) the
proliferation of surviving types. My objector has rolled them together. Some
confusion is avoided by recognizing them as distinct. I will discuss them one at
a time in reverse order:

c) Organisms are indeed unique in
how they reproduce—A set of DNA is read and duplicated automatically upon
certain preconditions being met. But organizations are also reproduced. Not only
do the original builders of an organization tend to build more organizations
based on their initial success, but also other people see what works and copy
it. This is so “natural” that copyright and other infringement laws must be made
to protect some processes organizations do. For our purposes we can set aside
reproduction as a “uniqueness” in comparing organisms with organizations.

b) Organisms must survive in a
less-than benevolent environment. They must access specific materials (be they
oxygen, carbon-dioxide, water, food, whatever) from the environment, and what
they give off must be received by the environment without fouling it; or the
organism will perish. Organizations, by comparison, must receive raw materials
and financial profits, by producing products and services for which the market
is willing to pay; or the organization will perish. This is key to population
ecology theory, which argues that the “survival of the fittest” accounts for the
populations of organizations that we find at any given time and place. For our
purposes we can set aside survival as a “uniqueness” in comparing organisms with
organizations.

a) Organisms change to some extent
from generation to generation. I do not look exactly like my parents, but this
can be entirely accounted for in the mix of DNA between my two parents. Setting
this aside, mutations occur, which increase the options in the survival mix; and
may introduce permanent change in the organism type, if it helps the organism
“win” in the fight for survival. (An example would be
cycle-cell, which enhances survivability in the presence of malaria.) It may
also be the case that mutations increase variations that may not affect survival
(hair, eye, and skin color). Organizations likewise differ from generation to
generation of organization, because founders make mistakes in copying former
organizations. But they also differ from those that came before because the
creators intentionally make changes, thinking through and projecting what might
work better in the changing economic environments.

On this point organization change
has a leg-up on organism mutation, which has no such creative option. Darwinian
theory denies any opportunity for forethought or “purpose” in the generation of
change. There can be no goal in sight, not even survival. Organizations can not
only change from generation to generation, but organization change can take
place without an existing organization. (I teach courses on how this is done.)
Even though major reengineering and restructuring of organizations is difficult
and complex, it is a far cry more possible than an organism deciding to have
more legs or less gills. (No, tadpoles don’t count. They were programmed from
conception to make that change, and it is repeated every generation without
permanent change.)

In my dissertation committee I
never said that evolution was not a useful or defendable position; I simply said
that the theory of evolution works better when applied to organizations than to
organisms. Regardless of what one chooses to believe about evolution of
organisms, it should be clear that it is easier to support survival of the
fittest as a mechanism for continuous change among organizations than it is
among organisms. If this is denied, I don’t see how it can be done on the basis
of logic. And if not logic, then what?

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

EPICENTER

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

Israel is the epicenter of history. As Joel Rosenberg and many others before him have pointed out, it is not only Israel, but Jerusalem and even the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is not a religious conclusion; it is what the evidence says.

I used to dislike history more than any other required
subject in school, because the whole thing was just memorizing ransom dates and
wars. It wasn’t until I took a(nother) required church history class under
Kenneth Scott LaTourette that it all began to make sense. History is one
continuous story. Not only that, but it also has one continuous plot. Why is the
Middle East always in the news? No, it’s not the oil. That only accounts for
interest in the last 100 years. What about the previous 5,000?
Watch the 90-second video again if needed: Israel is always in the center–a
country with no natural harbor, no vast mineral reserves, no corner on any world
market, just the most fought-over land in the world. Why?

And then there are the people themselves. There is no other
people who lost their nation, were dispersed around the world, and yet continued
to exist as an entity for more than a few hundred years. The Jews remained a
distinguishable people for 1700 years before reclaiming their homeland in
1948. This in itself should be enough to conclude they are somehow unique,
but add to that the repeated and focused attempts to wipe them out, and the probabilities say
they are " chosen."

What can one do with these facts? We must either accept the
fact that history not only has a plot, but also a purpose; or we can deny the facts. Oh, but
there is another more powerful alternative besides accept or deny: ignore the
facts.

Probability is the foundation of scientific discovery, yet
it is ignored when it comes to evidence for God.

Posted in History, Science and faith | No Comments »

OF THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF BELIEF AMONG DEMOCRATIC NATIONS

Sunday, August 3rd, 2008

Noting that Alexis de Tocqueville completed Democracy in America in the early 1800′s, I am
amazed that he foresaw the American war of secession over slavery (1860′s) and
even that America and Russia would some day become world superpowers with
competing world views (1960′s). His power of prediction stem not from religious
claims, but from uncompromised logic, applied to carefully investigated of
facts, with clear understanding of human nature.

That understanding of human nature is most clear to me in Book 2, Chapter 2
of Democracy, where he addresses a subject that I wrestle with regularly
in my century–The inevitability (and value) of dogmatism.

According to de Tocqueville, not only are we all dogmatic,
we all must be dogmatic in order to think clearly and deeply. There are too many
things to think through, so we must trust someone else’s conclusions in order to
build and think completely about anything. Anyone who has traveled overseas, or
even into a variant of our own culture, has discovered how fatiguing it is to
simply go through the day: How and when does one cross the street? Which
direction does the traffic flow? What does a mail box look like? Things we
previously took for granted must now be thought about, draining our ability to
cope. So we in our daily lives accept as true many things we have not
investigated in order to think on other things. Our society is allowed to
accumulate knowledge, instead of reinventing the wheel every generation. This
serves us well more often than not. It is a good thing to trust and build on
trustworthy sources. But what happens when people trust the wrong source?

De Tocqueville draws another conclusion: The nature of
democracy leads people to depend more on majority thinking than on accumulated
experience.  "At periods of equality men have no faith in one another, by
reason of their common resemblance; but this very resemblance gives them almost
unbounded confidence in the judgment of the public; for it would seem probable
that, as they are all endowed with equal means of judging, the greater truth
should go with the greater number." In other words, majority thinking becomes
more powerful than experience handed down from our forefathers. History is lost.

That is a scary thought. And I’m afraid de Tocqueville has
predicted again the state of America and the free world. Those who can think,
must.

Posted in Culture & society, History, Politics | 1 Comment »