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 | No Comments »