July 23, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

On July 22, 2010 The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story by Peter Schmidt entitled, “Augusta State U. Is Accused of Requiring a Counseling Student to Accept Homosexuality.”
The first line reads, “A graduate student in school counseling is accusing Augusta State University in federal court of violating her constitutional rights by demanding that she work to change her views opposing homosexuality.”
The article seems factual and written with balance. Though the entire article is only 539 words, it had by midnight of that day received 52 comments, totaling 7,375 words. A few were well thought out; most were not. I didn’t spot any in favor of the plaintiff’s position. One (the next day) said that all Christians were not as narrow minded as those fundamentalists that hold such positions as “wives obey thy husbands.” (Which is nowhere in the Bible.) In any case, the very first comment pretty well illustrates the major problem with the popular view of science today:
July 22, 4pm: “If she believes that the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese will she pass science? It seems to me that the issue is that she accepts what is shown to be true by the weight of scientific evidence. Where scientific consensus is lacking, she may be more free to assert her individual (or ideological) views.”
It’s hard to get along in the world, let alone make progress, unless we trust general consensus to be true most of the time. It is sad, however, when people assume that general consensus is fact, proven by science. How about assuming consensus, just because objections are not heard? This is not just a testimony to gullibility; it is far worse. It is an indication of how low science has gone in the minds of the public. Search the web. Search your libraries. There are no (as in zero) defendable research articles out there that have identified a homosexual gene. Remember that the people who subscribe to, and are therefore available to comment on articles in, the Journal of Higher Education are presumably higher educators. We should not assume therefore that all higher educators hold their views from true science. They may in fact be blind to it.

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

June 27, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

I have notices for some time in ID-evolution debates (or evolution-ID debates, if you prefer), that while ID defenders stick with arguments based on empirical evidence, defenders of evolution are more often veering off into arguments about the nature of God: For example, “Why would God make an organ that..” I first noticed this theology problem with evolutionists claiming that ID theorists were just trying to sneak God back into science (the main reason why evolutionists try to push ID theory into a subheading under creationism). Early on, when ID theorists responded that ID does not specify who or what the “designer” is, Eugenia Scott’s quip was, “If it’s not God, then it’s someone with the same job description!” How does an atheist come off drawing conclusions about the job description or any other characteristic of God?
Now, as Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute points out, the evolutionists’ argument has digressed so far as to call ID “bad theology.” When asked why he thinks this is happening, he proposes that there are strategic reasons for atheistic evolutionists to build alliances with theists who have bought into evolution. “Religious people are falling for intelligent design,” and the majority of evolution’s outspoken critics are Christians (though not all). Jay Richards does a good job of pointing out that there line of reasoning is not reasoning at all. What business do atheists have telling Christians, or any other theists for that matter, what they should believe about the nature of God?
I kept waiting for another point to come out in this broadcast, but it didn’t. I guess one point per broadcast is best, but I found it frustrating.
That other point is not minor. It should be irrelevant what spurs one into investigation. What do the data say in relation to the hypotheses? The assumption by neglect is that belief trumps findings. Excuse me, but isn’t that supposed to be a hallmark difference between science and theology?
Why a person originally proposes a theory could be based on materialism, revelation, superstition, whatever. It’s irrelevant to the scientific method: Theory > refutable hypothesis > observation > findings consistent with hypothesis or no. Suppose I theorize, for whatever reason, that the earth rests on the back of a giant sea turtle that moves our planet around the solar system. I hypothesize that if this is true, then we should detect that the earth moves in relation to other planets. There is evidence of this, so that hypothesis can be submitted as evidence supportive of the theory. It is evidence, regardless of whether one thinks it is conclusive, and the scientific response is to pursue other hypotheses, whether one agrees with the theory or not.
I quickly follow this line of reasoning by acknowledging that there are many other hypotheses that could be proposed with observations from public data to refute the theory, for example, photographs of earth from space (no turtle). Notice that this refutation requires no theological arguments. Science needs no theological arguments to do good science, and the fact that evolutionists are gravitating to theological arguments to debunk ID is a strong evidence that they can no longer find strong scientific arguments to refute ID! The evidence for ID is building in science, and the evidence is also building in the kinds of arguments of evolutionists.

Posted in Science and faith | 1 Comment »

May 9, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

We all know about the employee-of-the-month and the bunny-of-the-month. I just learned of a new one: the molecule-of-the-month. Check out this month’s centerfold at the RCSB Protean Data Bank.
One of the reasons Charles Darwin could propose his theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection as the explanation for the diversity of life was the assumption that less complex organisms were first, and that less complex means simpler. This suggests the tree of life, i.e., that simpler organisms are the ancestors of multiple more complex organisms, forever branching until we reach the most complex varieties of today. This train of thought was logical 150 years ago, because the cell was thought to be “simply” a blob of goo held together by a thin skin. Since one bag of goo seemed pretty much like another, new arrangements of the same goo bags could yield different animals. Right?
The one thing that has for sure evolved is our understanding of the goo. Today we estimate that the human body contains about 100,000 different molecules in its cells, and none of them are what we might call “simple.” As a matter of fact, the simplest of all viruses, are not simple either. Each one is a tiny machine part or tool with a specific function. That function is not only facilitated by the shape and size of the molecule, but also by the strength and positive and negative charges distributed about the molecule.
Today there seems to be no shortage of new discoveries of the complexity of life-related molecules, as evidenced by two molecules being featured for May, 2010, the month of this post. One is a virus that causes distemper in cats, parvoviruses; and the other is a repair molecule in humans, Mre11 Nuclease. The parvovirus neutralizes one cell in cats. With two modifications it can neutralize the same cell in dogs. Mre11 nuclease prevents mutation by repairing the ends of broked DNA strands. Both are pretty specific in function.
No life is made of goo. No life is simple. No explanation for it can be either.

Posted in Science and faith | 1 Comment »

May 2, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

OK, so I usually don’t post a new blog the day after the last one. This one I have to. Discovery institute just published its audio blog, ID the Future, highlighting the appendix argument for Darwinian evolution. Being an appendectomy survivor, and having written on it here in AcademicFreedomBlog, AND now with personal experience to vouch for some of the discomforts we are learning to be associated with loss of the appendix, I must encourage you to listen.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

May 1, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

Carlin Romano obscured his message with rabbit trails and sophist language, but the message is there and it is good. I can’t agree with everything he says in his review of Massimo Pigliucci’s Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk in The Chronicle Review April 25, 2010, but I must agree with his main point. The article is entitled, ”Science Warriors’ Ego Trips”. His point of contention begins with that “warrior” idea:
“The problem with polemicists like Pigliucci is that a chasm has opened up between two groups that might loosely be distinguished as ‘philosophers of science’ and ‘science warriors.’ “
Romano defines philosophers of science as having varying viewpoints, and their debates are necessary for advancement of science. He defines science warriors as attaching those who view things differently in unscientific ways, so they instead shut down debate and therefore advancement of science. With that foundation, he takes the attack on ID as Exhibit A.
“Pigliucci similarly derides religious explanations on logical grounds when he should be content with rejecting such explanations as unproven. ‘As long as we do not venture to make hypotheses about who the designer is and why and how she operates,’ he writes, ‘there are no empirical constraints on the ‘theory’ at all. Anything goes, and therefore nothing holds, because a theory that ‘explains’ everything really explains nothing.’
Here, Pigliucci again mixes up what’s likely or provable with what’s logically possible or rational. The creation stories of traditional religions and scriptures do, in effect, offer hypotheses, or claims, about who the designer is—e.g., see the Bible. And believers sometimes put forth the existence of scriptures (think of them as “reports”) and a centuries-long chain of believers in them as a form of empirical evidence. Far from explaining nothing because it explains everything, such an explanation explains a lot by explaining everything. It just doesn’t explain it convincingly to a scientist with other evidentiary standards.”
Here Romano mixes up something himself. He conflates ID with creationism. ID in fact makes no claims about what the designer might be like, because it uses only scientific observations of the natural world to draw its conclusions. Creationism stands on Scripture—e.g., see the Bible. But Romano’s point is well taken. Creationism does have a place in knowledge, because it answers questions that science cannot touch (something that science warriors cannot seem to admit).
“A sensible person can side with scientists on what’s true, but not with Pigliucci on what’s rational and possible. Pigliucci occasionally recognizes that. Late in his book, he concedes that “nonscientific claims may be true and still not qualify as science.” But if that’s so, and we care about truth, why exalt science to the degree he does? If there’s really a heaven, and science can’t (yet?) detect it, so much the worse for science.
As an epigram to his chapter titled “From Superstition to Natural Philosophy,” Pigliucci quotes a line from Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Science warriors such as Pigliucci, or Michael Ruse in his recent clash with other philosophers in []The Chronicle], should reflect on a related modern sense of “entertain.” One does not entertain a guest by mocking, deriding, and abusing the guest. Similarly, one does not entertain a thought or approach to knowledge by ridiculing it.”
Romano is right to call Pigliucci down for ridicule. Though he doesn’t personally buy the merits of ID, and apparently doesn’t even understand it, Romano defends ID’s right to be considered as a position of knowledge, as a true philosopher of science would. One in the article Romano abandons his dominant style to state his main point in simple words, which by contrast makes the point even more powerfully:
“Tone matters. And sarcasm is not science.”

Posted in Notable Quotes, Science and faith | No Comments »

April 25, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

I am thoroughly enjoying the Life series on Discovery Channel. I’ve set my TV to record them all, and all are excellent. My wife and I watch them half hour at a time during the week. Too much goes by not to stop and talk about it half way through. I laughed last night as I watched the male Darwin’s beetle that plays “King of the Mountain,” climbing 80 feet up a tree, tossing off other would-be suitors in rout, until he reaches the prize at the top, only to toss her off the tree after mating.
There is a frustrating part about the series, though I’ve gotten use to it: I’ve gotten used to it in almost every nature show, but in this series it is particularly obvious. Each show begins in the first few sentences of narrative with some statement about how all this marvelously evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and each show ends in the last few sentences with the same patronage to evolutionary theory. I suppose these bookends ensure the image of intellectually political correctness, even though the word “evolution” seldom appears between the two, and is never used to explain anything. Like where the narrator mentions how frogs have survived hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Translated that means that no matter where you look in the fossil record, frogs are frogs. There is no evidence that they have ever evolved from or to anything.
The most revealing evidence of the problem is that the series consistently personifies with such phrases as “nature has developed…” or even “plants have learned to..”
This occurs because the only way to rationally describe what is there without giving credit to a designer is to say it as if the organism or the environment should take credit for what was obviously not an accident. Personification sounds as if thought were involved without admitting it. This, too, is contrary to Darwin’s theory, but that’s OK. It doesn’t reach the level of blasphemy that attribution to a designer would hit. Even if personification is the only alternative for a semi-rational statement, it’s better than admitting the need for a Person.

Posted in Science and faith | 1 Comment »

April 11, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

The 2010 movie release of The Clash of the Titans is a far cry from the actual Greek myth upon which it is supposedly based, but one of the most intriguing is its synthesis of modern Christian mythology.
Modern mythology says that God created man because He needed to be worshipped, just as is portrayed in this movie. This is not in the Bible. The movie says that God created us as an act of love. This is in the Bible, but love is defined differently.
Then there’s the part about God having a son with human body. The classic Greek myth had this, but only as the result of promiscuity, not an eternal plan.
But the movie writers could not resist one last reference to Christianity when Zeus and Perseus face off at the end. (I don’t think this is going to ruin the movie for any still eager to see it, since any plot is quite secondary to the action and graphics.) After the defeat of the gods, Zeus says that he let the humans win. He then says in affect to his son that he wanted the worship of mankind, but it wasn’t worth the sacrifice of his son. According to the Bible, God does not attempt to force love or worship from us. That’s a contradiction of terms, as defined in the Bible. But then there’s the sacrifice part. According to the Bible, even if He leaves with us the right to reject Him, God thinks the sacrifice is worth it.

Posted in Culture & society | No Comments »

March 30, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

I just finished reading Anthony Flew’s There is a God. Because he has been a life-long defender of atheism, whatever he had to say about his change of mind would be interesting. He begins of course with how he became atheistic, so I was well into the book before I learned what began the change. There it was on page 68: he heard a scientific explanation for why Darwinian evolution is not a satisfactory explanation for the world we experience. This is not his whole argument, but it is apparently what got the ball rolling. Flew contends that at publication of this book he is not a Christian, but I am intrigued that he includes as an appendix a dialogue with N.T. Wright, who logically explains why Christ must be who He says He is (the Son of God) and that He did what the Bible says He did (died and rose to offer us eternal life).
What I find most interesting is that Flew is now toying with the claims of Christ. It illustrates what I think is the primary reason Darwin’s theory is so ravenously defended. It isn’t because alternatives are so illogical, or even that introducing a metaphysical cause into the equation ruins all hope of scientific explanations of cause-and-affect. It is because immediately upon the admission of a creator follows the need to justify one’s own self before that Creator, Whoever that is.
Oh, there are many defenders of Darwinism who honestly think any alternative is unscientific, simply because they have been taught to consider nothing else. Among them are some Christians. But they do not typically represent the almost frantic rebellion against alternative views that we see from prominent Darwin defenders like Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, and Michael Ruse.
Admitting the possibility of a designer is not a door to some pantheistic, Star Wars-type “force.” The same logic that precipitates a creator of mind says it must therefore have one. The logic that admits that life and its environment is purpose-driven leads inevitably to the conclusion that the creator has purpose.
Throughout history and across the present a common trait of humans is belief in a supernatural. Darwinism is a man-made dam to stop the flood of accountability to some superior being that all the rest of mankind naturally senses and that modern science suggests. The barrier to belief is artificial, and so are the excuses for not admitting it.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

March 26, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

When Tom Woodward interviewed me for his March 24, 2010 weekly radio program,Darwin or Design, he mentioned the way the chimp Y chromosome discovery was handled by the media. I haven’t commented on that before, but I should:
For years you and I have heard that chimpanzee and human DNA are 90-something percent identical. (Usually it’s 98%, but you can see my comments on that in a former post.) Of course that was flaunted as proof that the two species were so close on the evolutionary tree, having climbed out on different branches very recently. Evolution must be true!
As Tom pointed out on the program, articles like the one in Science Daily taught that the wonderful discovery that drastic differences between chimpanzee and human Y chromosome is evidence for how fast we have evolved from common ancestors! So, similarity shows how we evolved from a common ancestor, and difference shows how we evolved from a common ancestor. Maybe Tom and I are missing something here, but if the evidence always proves evolution, no matter what the evidence says, I feel a little deceived. If the evidence can fall either way and still prove the same thing, I’m not falling for it.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

March 8, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

In the Monday, March 8 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Michael Ruse wrote an article entitled, “Philosophers Rip Darwin,” in which he rips Jerry Fodor for his book, What Darwin Got Wrong.
It is easy to see from this article that Michael Ruse does indeed read the works of many who object to Darwinian evolution as a complete picture of biological origin, and I commend his many clear statements of their positions. Overall, however, I question his approach here to answering them.
First he states that new objections are coming from philosophy and then mentions his own connection with philosophy. Fine. But then he lists biological advancements that assume a Darwinian viewpoint. I see no connection. If there are holes in the logic (philosophy), then it doesn’t matter what the observations are (only one half of science).
He then addresses objectors by first positioning them as religious. What has that got to do with the validity of their arguments, unless they argue from religious texts? They don’t. He points out that Plantinga believes in ID and is committed to debunking evolution. If these disqualify him from participating in the debate, then Ruse is disqualified for his commitment to Darwinian evolution and his religious position.
Then Ruse begins his response. “What does one say about these critics? ..To say that a speckled moth is less likely to be eaten by a robin than a dark moth, because the robin can less easily see the speckled moth against the lichen-covered tree, is to say nothing about God or any other conscious being.” I agree. Why is he bringing it up? Plantinga and Fodor don’t. They stick to philosophy and science.
His barrage of current scientific investigations and findings are impressive, and cause me to be proud of human accomplishments, but I must disagree that “the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade—[have] been shown to be the exquisite end result of evolution. “
And as for his “suspicion ..that Fodor doesn’t really give a damn about fruit flies or finches or anything else out there. But when it comes to Homo sapiens, he wants no part of a naturalistic explanation that reduces design to the workings of blind law”: So what? The point is that sufficient “blind laws” have not been found. And the philosophical arguments of Fodor, which I thought this article was to address, remain unanswered.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »