July 31, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

About a month ago my wife and I went to a therapist in The Big City next door. We knew nothing about light therapy, but were willing to check out this “alternative medicine.” We are OK with exploring such things, realizing that thousands of years of experimenting with plants and exercises should produce some treatments of value, regardless of the explanations given to them by their providers. I, for one, have found an exercise similar to tai chi to relieve me from ever going back to an MD or chiropractor for back pain.
But back to my story: As we waited in her office-home, I first noticed the raw crystals on the shelves. (I’m a rock hound.) Then my wife pointed out the religious symbols on the walls and spiritual books and pictures, most having reference to crystals or Taoism. When I asked the therapist about her personal belief system, she replied, “Oh, I embrace all religions.” Funny, I didn’t see any crosses among the symbolism. She is a pantheist, which means “all-god,” or “all-the-gods,” or even “all-is-god.” No one, including pantheists who claim to, can embrace everyone else’s beliefs when some of those other beliefs say they are the only way. Even other religions that say they respect Christ as a great prophet (along with Mohammed) or among the appearances of god (along with Krishna) do not include the cross; because the cross has one meaning—There must be a substitutionary payment for each person’s short-fall before a perfect God.
That statement is huge. It includes that there is one and only one absolute and just God, who desires a relationship with us enough to pay a cost we cannot overcome any other way than His personal payment. Some religions say Christ is or was a god, but that does not distinguish them. Some say Christ made the first or major payment for sin, and then we must keep our end of the bargain or it’s all for naught; but that does not make them unique or distinct. There is one and only one “religion,” if we can even call it that, that says we are entirely incapable of earning any part of favor with God (OK, or a right relation to the universe). Why is that so distinct? It flies against human nature to not earn the ultimate prize. Why would any human make that up? They wouldn’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

July 8, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

A Muslim friend asked me that question after lunch together one day. It seems to wrangle Muslims that Christians should be so presumptuous as to refer to the One and Only God as a relative, as if there could be anyone near His equal. To suggest that the one true God has a partner is the unforgivable Islamic sin called “shirk,” and is denounced in no uncertain terms in many parts of the Qur’an (for instance, Surah 4:48 and 116).
To reply to my friend that the Bible tells us to refer to Him as Father in prayer (Matthew 6:9) would neither satisfactorily answer his question nor endear him to my source.
A better explanation is that the question is really backwards:
God is not my father in the sense of bloodline, and He is indeed without peer, predecessor, or sequel (Isaiah 43:10-11). God does not fall under our definition of father, because He existed before fathers were invented. On the contrary, He invented fathers to help us understand a little bit how He feels about us.
I should have said to my friend, “You are a father. How do you feel about your children? Do you love them? Do you want them to grow up healthy? to do well in life? Do you do for them what they ask or what they need? Do you discipline them for their own good? Would it hurt for your child to turn away from you? Can the positive response of one of my children make up for the turning away of another?”
God is not my father, but He says to use that word toward Him as the closest approximation from our experience to grasp the awesome way He feels about each of us (Psalm 103:13).
Christians do not commit shirk, because they do not consider themselves to be God’s equal; we don’t even consider ourselves worthy to be in His presence. The right to have any relationship at all with Him must be a pure, unmerited gift, only possible if He makes it available to us (John 1:12). To think that by my attitude or action I could earn any meager level of merit before God… That would be to put an upper limit on God’s greatness above us. To me, that would be shirk.

Posted in Comparative religion | No Comments »

June 1, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Recently yet another person said to me, “Well, we believe that man is basically good.” He was contrasting his religion with mine. (I guess he didn’t realize that many people who claim to be of my religion think the same as he does.)
My first thought was to say, “Basically good compared to what?” The response to that would of course be, “What do you mean, ‘compared to what?’” This would allow me to continue: “’Good’ is a comparative word, for example, tall, taller, tallest; or fat v. thin; or high v. low. So, man is basically good compared to what? A porpoise, that plays with its food before it kills it, or a black widow spider, that eats its suitor after it mates?”
The only answer to that is, “No, compare to standards of behavior.” If the standards of behavior are set by men, then of course he is good compared to his own wishy-washy standards. What ‘good’ is that comparison? If you mean compared with the standards of God, be it the Bible, Qur’an, or some other religious book, then you have a problem: Is God perfect or not? Is His standard perfect or not? I am not perfect, and no one who has ever said to me “man is basically good” should claim to be perfect. To say that “man is basically good” is a veiled argument for “God should be OK with my performance, even though I’m not perfect.” Well. that is paramount to saying God is wishy-washy about His own standard.
I said, “My first thought was to say..” because I don’t think it is the best response. A better response would be to begin with a definition of God: “Is God perfect? Is God just? Is God righteous?” Then comes, “I am not perfect. Are you?”
If you or I are to ever have a relationship with God, then somehow a payment for our shortfall must be made, however slight we think it is. Suppose a parent tells their child not to run through the house. Then the child runs through the house and knocks over a lamp, braking it. The child says “I’m sorry,” and the parent says, “I forgive you.” End of story? Who paid for the broken lamp? Being forgiven does not pay for the lost lamp. Paddling the child does not replace the lamp? It’s still gone. Even if the old lamp is not replaced, the cost has occurred, and will be borne by someone. Either the child pays for it or the parent pays for it.
If I run through life and break any part of God’s law, there are only a few options for me to have a relationship with God:
I pay for it, God pays for it, or God is not just and righteous.
I can’t pay for it. Which of the other two options makes the most since? There is only one religion where God pays, and many who claim to be of that religion haven’t really accepted the One who has paid.

Posted in Comparative religion | 1 Comment »

May 1, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

After warning an audience against buying into Darwinian evolution too easily, I overheard someone in the audience say, “Well, I guess we could just scrap all progress and throw out evolution. (The sarcasm was obviously meant for me to overhear.) She didn’t realize how opposite the truth really is.
Take for instance the current case of the dune sagebrush lizard, or sand dune lizard (sceloporus arenicolus), proposed for the endangered species list by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. If it becomes classified as endangered, then its habitat becomes “protected,” and economic progress stops.
Don’t get me wrong. I love lizards, and enjoyed catching and keeping his cousin the eastern fence swift (sceloporus undulates) when I was a kid growing up in Alabama. They are found all over the southeast, and are very similar, as is the Western fence swift (Sceloporus occidentalis ), found from Texas to California, and the sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), found everywhere between Texas and Idaho.
And that’s my point: One word you will find in all the above citations except the Fish & Wildlife report is “common.” We are holding up progress for a lizard that has abundant replacements.
Some scientists make a living by identifying “species,” even naming them after themselves on occasion, without ever drawing up a clear definition of what a “species” really is. They leave us with the mistaken impression that every species is unique, took millions of years to “evolve” (another poorly defined word), and is irreplaceable. In fact each of these lizards only differ by concentrations of certain options (alleles) in the same genomic structure. It’s like pigmentation differences in humans, and we are not different species for it.
It seems strange to me that scientists are all about clarification until it comes to these two terms, species and evolution. If the clarification there would be faced and dealt with, we could then get some real progress in other areas. Why not do it? Because once those terms became clear, then Darwinian evolution itself might become an endangered species.

Posted in Politics, Science and faith | 2 Comments »

April 27, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

I have listened inattentively to radio talk shows and call-ins for years. Don’t eat while listening, because they definitely are not good for digestion. They talk of degeneration in our culture and of how government is taking away our basic religious freedoms. Morality takes a backseat to economics. They are disturbing, because of how correct they are. I have mentally joined in on the complaining, even if I have not called in.
But in a democracy, who can we blame? No, I don’t think we need a push for more Christians involved in politics. Yes, we do need more, but that is hardly the core problem. A democratic society merely reflects the people, and Christian leaders can only do so much when society is going the other way.
We complain about how Thomas Jefferson is misrepresented today on the “separation of church and state” issue, and yet why has it only been a problem in the last 50 years? Maybe it’s because for the last 100 years we have separated God from our state of mind.
Does my Christian service begin and end with attending “services?” Does reading my Bible affect the way I live? Do I talk with Him as I walk through my day, or is that just for my “prayer time?” If not, then I deserve my government. Correction begins with deciding whether God is real in my own life.
No more separation.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Personal story | 1 Comment »

April 18, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

I have to say something. Academic Freedom acts are happening to the chagrin of well-organized oppositions. By mid-February of this year the NCSE sounded the alarm that bills for the protection of teachers in relation to teaching balance in science controversy had already been proposed in seven separate state legislatures. Last week, HB368 passed in the Tennessee House by a vote of 70 to 28, hardly close, and opposition confesses that the identical Senate bill, SB368, will probably pass and be signed into law.
The fascinating thing is that the major groups in opposition to such legislature all claim to be protecting science, yet this bill and others like it only promote the teaching of more science, not less. The opposition constantly speaks of religion being snuck into the classroom, of Creationism and Intelligent Design, while the bills speak of helping students learn to think critically. The bills often contain specific paragraphs saying religious interpretations are expressly prohibited. They must say it because of the accusations of the opposition, not because of any suggestive wording in the bills themselves.
The more the opposition focuses on non-issues and objects to teaching critical thinking, the more suspect is their confidence in how scientific their positions really are.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | 2 Comments »

February 9, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Somewhere between the language of DNA and the fine-tuning of the universe is another level of design that deserves our awe.
I spent yesterday afternoon tweaking the Excel case I’ve written for my students, and I will spend all this morning doing the same. It is tedious, but there is a rush when an argument (conditional formula) finally does what I intend. I have written before about the amazing assumption that the arguments expressed in DNA so far surpass what I attempt in Excel, but it just dawned on me: What about the platform?
I’m impressed with my own successes at writing a program that is executed in Excel, but this is nothing compared with the Excel platform itself. It is so exact and yet so versatile as to allow me to write these arguments, sometimes allowing me to achieve my complex commands in a number of different ways.
The parallel is there with the chemical structure of the universe. DNA is indeed amazing, but it is merely a language made possible by the innate capacity designed into atoms and molecules. They may be assembled in such a way as to both inform and carry out instructions.
Simplistically speaking, they are like Legos, designed in many different sizes and shapes for maximum assembly possibilities. But unlike Legos, atoms have no need for new foundational parts being added, such as Star Wars or Harry Potter kits, as the audience matures or gains new cultural icons. As our cultures gain information, we simply discover new ways to assemble the original parts (and ways that they are already assembled beyond our imagination).
The original “kit,” which we picture as a periodic chart, gives every indication of being inexhaustible in possibilities. This suggests not only a designer, but one that might even be inexhaustible in qualities.

Posted in Science and faith | 3 Comments »

January 24, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Today one of my students called, because he couldn’t get past one the steps in a software case I’ve written for them. It has an Excel basis, and when students enter inconsistent data or skip steps, red messages appear in an effort to set them straight. This student could not figure out how to follow the message. After explaining the easy solution to his dilemma, I made a note to myself to tweak the software to make the message clearer. I can fix it with an additional “if-this” statement. (=IF(and(A1>0,SUM(B1)<1),..) But even though I’ve used this basic software with thousands of students, creative students seem always able to find new ways to misunderstand or do it wrong. Fortunately, tweeking is possible for the next class.. and the next..
But it occurs to me that this is not what we find in nature. Sure, organisms change over time with changing environmental conditions, but the programming, as far as we can tell, does not go through “tweaks.” We find organisms that utilize certain alleles to be more successful at surviving to reproduction than others in certain environments; we have even found microorganisms that swop DNA, and evade extinction; but what we don’t find is brand new information in the DNA program. It’s always recycled from somewhere else.
We are even hard pressed to prove that any given organism, or organ, or organelle for that matter, could be improved upon with a few tweaks. Evolution’s classic example bit the dust in 2010, when it was discovered that the human eye really is optimally efficient with its so-called “backward design” of blood vessels and light sensors.
If evolution were actually happening, then science should be replete with examples of organisms with features not-quite-ready-for-prime-time. Evolutionists know this, and constantly list potential candidates for this condition, each of which is toppled over time with discoveries of underlying purpose (another word evolutionists don’t like).

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

December 27, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

How do you take down Christmas tree lights? I’ve been doing it for years. You’d think I would have come up with a system sooner than this, but it just dawned on me! After first getting all the ornaments off (my first rule, discovery early in my un-decorating career), I usually just started looking around the tree for an end and then started rolling each strand up on a piece of cardboard (my last innovation, several years ago). But then I would find that as I rolled up a strand, it was tangled with other strands, and I’d be weaving them in and out of each other, or laying that one aside and finding another end to begin again. My new discovery is that if I go to the wall outlet where all the strands are plugged in, the plug at the top of the stack, the one farthest from the wall outlet, is the last one strung, and therefore is the one that lies on top of all the other strands that it crosses! Duh! Now I have three steps: remove ornaments, begin with the strand plugged in last, and roll from the wall outlet onto a square of cardboard.
While rolling the lights back onto the cardboard squares for storage, I began thinking about how easily tangles occur, if you just role one strand out of order. Then I began thinking about DNA and how it is coiled for storage. The process is inconceivably fast and accurate, with coil upon coil upon coil, and yet organelles inside each cell are capable of finding just the right portion of the coil, accessing it, duplicating it for reproduction or converting it to RNA for manufacturing a protein, and then returning it to exactly the right place, where it can be retrieved again later, with incredibly few mishaps.
Check out this website. Scroll down to the video and watch the first portion, which illustrates the coiling process. Now, I ask you: which is more complex, DNA coiling, or Christmas tree light rolling? Now, is there likely to randomly occur a machine to quickly and accurately uncoil and then re-hang Christmas tree lights? I don’t think so, and I’m quite confident that millions of years wouldn’t help. Why would anyone believe that DNA coiling is done by an organelle that occurred through random chance before being “naturally selected” in Darwinian evolution? That takes more faith than I’ve got. Watch the rest of the video, and remember that the entire process has to work before any organism can even be there for natural selection to select. Have a happy New Year, and keep thinking.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

November 6, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

Tonight my wife and I enjoyed another (prerecorded) episode of the Discovery Chanel’s Life TV series. The series is filled with beautiful, painstaking photography and fascinating facts about our natural world.
However in order for people to benefit from this, they must constantly be subjected to Darwinian correctness. I say “correctness,” because it’s not just the facts that are presented, it’s that they are said a certain way.
For example, every time narrator Whoopee Goldberg made reference to a creature that has a unique ability, she would say it “has evolved” the amazing characteristic, regardless of whether there is any fossil record of the development of the feature. But when it was noted that any of today’s creatures was identical to its entire fossil record, Ms Goldberg was obliged to say that it “has remained unchanged over millions of years.”
So, what’s wrong with this? Two things: First, the carefully selected words would never be interchanged. Never could Ms Goldberg say that an animal “changed” into its present form, nor would she ever have liberty to say that over millions of years an organism “had not evolved.” To say that something had not evolved, even if it had not changed, would be anathema!
Second, evolution must be continually reinforced in the minds of the audience, even though it has nothing to do with the facts being presented. For example, any time a feature was mentioned as having evolved, no reference was made to what it had evolved from. There was no evidence, just the presumption of evolution. It sounds so intelligent to say “evolved,” in a nature show, even though it has nothing to do with the facts being presented. Likewise, on the flip side, when reference is made to no change, there must be insertion of the phrase “millions of years,” even though the show is only about life today.
This is why most people who believe in evolution believe in evolution. They aren’t dumb. They have just never been exposed to the evidence and allowed to make up their own minds. Maybe they never will. They just constantly hear the presumption of evolution, and assume it’s a slam dunk. Maybe it isn’t. If they ever find out, it’s going to be because they take the initiative to find out for themselves. The Discovery Channel certainly isn’t going to help them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »