August 3, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

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, Politics, History | 1 Comment »

July 13, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

If parents don’t raise their kids, then television and computer games will. TV & game writers are not interested in moral character and wise society, only in addictive viewing, that is, passivity. Passivity is unfit for democracy, but works very well in a dictatorship. Where are we going, if we don’t direct ourselves?

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | No Comments »

June 23, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I recently became aware of a book by  Helen Epstein entitled "The
Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." In good
journalist style Epstein documents the drop in AIDS cases in Uganda during the
mid-80’s and 90’s, and goes to learn for herself if there is an answer to the
world crisis. She finds one, and nobody is talking about it. At a conference a
couple of years ago I met a man recently retired from the CDC in Atlanta. I
asked if he was involved in AIDS research at the CDC, and indeed he was. I then
asked him to comment on the Ugandan phenomenon, and he didn’t know what I was
talking about. He was intrigued to hear that there was a significant drop in
infection for a decade there, but I think also a little incredulous. Why was he
hearing of this for the first time from someone outside the Center? I was asking
myself the same question.

The CDC has good information on AIDS and
transmission of HIV, but you have to read between the lines to get what is
actually happening. It begins with the following:

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by
sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who
is infected, or, less commonly (and now very rarely in countries where blood is
screened for HIV antibodies), through transfusions of infected blood or blood
clotting factors. Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before
or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.

OK, so HIV is spread by sex, needles, blood transfusion,
during pregnancy, delivery, and breast feeding, six basic ways. Research has
documented many ways in which HIV is NOT spread, and these include casual
kissing, skin contact, mosquitoes,
pets , and toilet seats. It has rarely occurred by French kissing or biting,
and that was in the case of blood transfer.

It only spreads through the transfer of infected body
fluids. Which ones?"HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood,
semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears." Six body fluids, and the
article later makes clear that they are listed in the order in which
concentration is found. The fluids must be living, human fluids. Once the fluid
dries, it can not infect. It cannot reproduce itself outside of a host human.
(That’s why it’s called HUMAN Immunodeficiency Virus.) Environmental transmission
is "essentially zero." Finding the source of the epidemic requires some
detective work, but is quite logical.

"Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown
to result in transmission of HIV," so we are down to blood, semen, vaginal
fluid, and breast milk. Blood transfusions are quite safe now, because the virus
is relatively large and easy to filter from collected blood. Dirty needles are
used primarily in illegal contexts, so the epidemic is essentially traceable to
sexual contact.

It is a tragedy that some infants are born HIV positive or
catch it from the birth process or nursing. We need to find cures for their
sake, if no other, but this is not the infection responsible for the world-wide
epidemic. How did the mother become HIV positive?

Research
indicates that "women are very unlikely to pass HIV on  to another woman in
any sexual contact." There is minuscule transfer of body fluid, and infected
vaginal fluid is relatively low in concentration. That means that if we are
tracing the epidemic, the transfer is from a male to the female via sexual
penetration. How did the male become HIV positive?

It is possible for a male to catch HIV from a female,
more-so if the male is uncircumcised, but the risk is still low.
That means that in terms of an epidemic the male got it from another male. How
did the male get it from another male? We know that anal penetration is the highest sexual risk. Add to this that one can only catch HIV from someone who has HIV, and we know the culprit of the epidemic is male-male anal sex with multiple partners.

By coming to male-male transfer we complete the
investigation, because the cycle is endless at this juncture: There would be no
epidemic if male-male sex with multiple partners was halted.

The above argument does not condemn homosexual behavior in
general: the logic is not based on religion or morality. Regardless, the
conclusion is politically incorrect, because it lays the blame on a behavioral
"right." I am not so naive as to think we can simply say "stop," and it is done.
Epstein proposes a social solution. But it is not being done. Something is wrong
when a society that gives a "right" to a behavior that hurts the society.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | 1 Comment »

April 27, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I want to be sure my readers are not only aware of books
like Bondage of the Mind., but of who promotes such books. I do not recommend the
review linked above, but to give you a flavor for its position, the sixth paragraph begins,
"Gold [the author] begins his book with a series of chapters detailing the Old
Testament’s failure to live up to the Orthodox claim that it is the word of God
rather than the writings of men." In other words, before convincing the reader
that belief in the the Bible is bondage, the author must convince the reader
that the Bible is rubbish. This is good. No, not that he thinks the Bible is
rubbish, that he thinks it important to begin with that. Some "thinkers" today
would dispense with the truth position as irrelevant. Regardless of what you or
I think of his truth arguments, at least he has not gone off that deep end.

If you will scroll up the page from the above-mentioned
link, you will find that the commentary is provided by the Skeptics Society.
Interestingly enough, the Skeptics Society does not completely live up to its
name. Its most recent magazine issue presents articles on both sides of the global warming argument, but in
its issue on religion v. atheism, even in its article
against Dawkin’s atheistic position, they cannot bring themselves to seriously
question evolution. I defend that observation by how the article objects to
Dawkins. He does not object to evolution in general. Indeed, "Darwin’s theory
was enormously bolstered" by the discoveries of genetics, the author says (no
evidence provided). He merely
objects that Dawkins thinks randomness leads to evolution. So the alternative is
God, right? Wrong. The author’s argument
is not that there is an Intelligent Agent behind the universe, but that the
universe itself possesses intelligence: "The universe evolved along intelligent
lines." (Personally, I’d translate that as pantheism.)

Lest you think this is an out-of-touch organization, please
note that their positive review of Bondage of the Mind is promoted in the
Arts & Letters Daily, a publication of the Chronicle of Higher Education, the
most recognized publisher in the American education world. Does that sadden anyone besides me.

———-

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

April 3, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I regret that my travel schedule will prevent me from
attending either presentation by Dinesh D’Souza in Birmingham, AL on April 17th,
but perhaps some readers are within driving distance. He is speaking at the
Latimer House Luncheon, 11:30-12:30 PM ($10 lunch) on his new book

What’s So Great about Christianity, and at Reid Chapel, Samford University at 7 PM
(free admission) on "Christianity, Islam, and the War on Terror." Neither event
requires reservation. I was not familiar with Mr. D’Souza’s work before hearing
of these events, but I am intrigued by his

Washington Post article in response to his other writings. Anyone who is
that criticized must have something to say! If you can’t attend, at least read
the article.

I can’t say at this point if I buy his total view (I
haven’t heard his total view), but in the article he well defends the following
argument: "The thrust of the radical Muslim critique of America is that
Islam is under attack from the global forces of atheism and immorality — and
that the United States is leading that attack."

The man warrants a hearing.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | No Comments »

March 20, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Scoop is a New
Zealand-based news source that one would seldom mistake as conservative. For
that reason I find their Top Story for March 4
particularly revealing. Their premise is that just as gatherings in
Woodstock, New York made cultural
waves around the world in the 1960’s, so a series of meetings at
Konrad Lorenz Institute in
Altenberg, Austria this coming July could make waves for the redesign of
evolution theory. the Konrad Lorenz group will be seeking, according to the
article, to give evolution a new foundation by linking it with self-organization
theory. The article admits that Darwinian evolution offers no explanation for
the origin of life in the first place, but the idea that certain physical laws
acting against each other could. Very simply,
self-organization theory says that under conditions where natural forces cannot both rule at
the same time, the mater and energy affected is automatically reorganized into a
higher level of order. An example would be when water is accelerating toward a
drain by gravity and yet the water particles cannot all fit around the drain.
The acceleration is accommodated by the water forming into a rapidly spinning
funnel. A similar explanation can be given for tornadoes, some phenomenon in
space, elsewhere in our common experiences. The concept is not new, and the
difference in complexity between a tornado and the simplest cell is incredibly
large. (A nice scientific explanation of the problem can be found here. If you want to cut to the punch line, see the last two slides.)
Nevertheless, I am not here seeking to debunk the role self-organizing systems
might some day play in the theory of evolution.

What I do want to point out is that in order to justify
such a meeting the author must give some shrift to the shortfalls of current
evolutionary theory–something seldom done in modern media. The author makes the
statement, "Some kind of shift away from the population genetic-centered view of
evolution is afoot." This is huge. It is an acknowledgment that advances in our
understanding of genetics has not precipitated understanding in how things
evolved. could just the opposite be true–we find ourselves being LESS confident
in a purely hereditary explanation?

Below the picture of Alan Love (mentioned for location
purposes only) you find "through the years most biologists outside of
evolutionary biology have mistakenly believed that evolution is natural
selection. A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s relevance,
though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle
underway, the hurling of slurs such as ‘looney Marxist hangover’, ‘philosopher’
(a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising."
Again–huge: the admission is not only that natural selection is inadequate, but
that it may need to be abandoned as a central tenant!

Read on. There is more, but I will stop my commentary here.
The point is made: In order for the more "advanced" ideas to be considered, the
short-falls in the old ideas must be allowed the light of day. If we ever expect
our children in science class to advance that science, then why do our textbooks
and public classrooms not tolerate (encourage) looking at both the adequacies
AND INADEQUACIES of evolutionary theory? I think someone is afraid of religion,
and will only allow the word out if they already have another, better,
(atheistic) explanation. Don’t trust the children with open discussion of an
idea that may lead to consideration of a Higher reason for the inadequacies.

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | 2 Comments »

March 10, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Last week I blogged about a movie review and reviewer who
blindly opposed Expelled. This week I must comment on an example from the other
far side. Jack Cashill, executive editor of Ingram’s Magazine,  wrote his
defense of Ben Stein’s Expelled. I say the other far side, because just
as Robert Moore obviously had made up his mind about his view of the film before
he entered the theater, so Cashill gives no attention to the film’s
short falls. He begins with a barrage of adjectives that do nothing but alienate
anyone who does not hold his same narrow opinions on a multitude of issues
irrelevant to the film and it’s topic. So, unless you wish to risk getting
unnecessarily distracted (even offended), skip the first seven paragraphs, and begin with "And into this breach,.." to see what he thought about the film itself. I found
new insight here. I have not seen the film yet–I keep getting invitations to
viewings that are hundreds of miles away–so I am not equipped to comment on the
film itself. Alas, I must confine my comments to the comments. There, now we have two contrasting biased views of the film. I guess you and I will have to wait to see the film ourselves to get a balanced view–or will we then?

Posted in Culture & society | 1 Comment »

January 31, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

My wife just got a fund appeal letter from Planned Parenthood (PP). Perhaps
one came to your house, too. As a sociologist I am always fascinated to read how
various groups portray themselves and their opponents. In this case, PP refers
to their facilities as "health centers" and they posit that their opponents,
referred to in the letter as "anti-choice agitators" and "anti-choice hate
groups," want to stop them from "delivering education and essential health care
services." The groups in question promote abstinence-only sex education and the
reduction, if not total elimination of abortion clinics. I find on the web that
these organizations (calling themselves "pro-life," not "anti-choice") do object
to abortion on demand, but I find no where that they are against testing for
disease or referral to treatment. I’m yet to figure out who it is that they are
supposed to hate. And I personally don’t see how a woman is
"healthier" after an abortion than before, and may be the other way around. That
being the case, I don’t see that anti-abortion advocates can legitimately be
accused of wanting to shut down "health centers," unless the only "health
service" provided ends in an abortion. And if that’s the case, is "health
centers" the best phrase to describe them? If they provide other health
services, then why would they be shut down at the elimination of only one of
their "services?"

In about the middle of page 3 of their letter PP points out
that "the U.S. government has poured more than $1 billion in federal funding
over the past decade into these [abstinence only] programs." Three paragraphs
later PP acknowledges in a subordinate prepositional phrase that there has been
a "recent decline in teen pregnancy rates," but they fail to tie these two facts
together. I also note at the top of the same page that PP has been "providing
women with health care for more than 90 years." Doing a little math, I would say
that the past decade of abstinence-only teaching is more likely to be related to
the decline in pregnancies than the 90 years of PP services.

And speaking of math, on the same page I find the
statement, "Approximately 750,000 U.S. teens will become pregnant this year, and
nearly four million of them will contract a sexually transmitted infection."
Good grammar and clear communication would dictate that compared numbers all be
written in the same format. Grammar also dictates that the "them" in the second
clause further explains the "750,000 U.S. teens" in the first clause. If they
had considered these rules, they may have caught their mistake: PP says
4,000,000 of the 750,000 will catch diseases. The intended communication is
alarming, sad, and should not be taken lightly; but the grammar error suggests
just one more reason care should be taken in reading the overall letter.

In the letter PP posits that they offer "comprehensive,
medically accurate sexuality education that discusses both contraception and
abstinence." This is not what I find on their website.  I made reference to
this problem in my blog on

November 18, 2006, but looking at the PP website, I think it needs a little
more detail. The problem is behavioral license that results from issuing condoms
and a  false sense of security. I must illustrate:  On their
homepage is a link entitled, "STDs,
HIV & Safer Sex." There we read at the top of the page, "All plants and
animals that reproduce sexually develop sexually transmitted infections (STIs)."
The paragraph suggests that it’s not only normal, but "everybody’s doing it." It
encourages girls and women to discuss their sexual behavior with their
clinician. There is no mention of parents. There is no consideration that the
reader may be grappling with a behavioral choice before the fact.

Ah, in the left column are the words, "Preventing STIs/STDs." Perhaps there is
help with my decision here. Yes, that page is
titled "Preventing STI’s/STDs," but the immediate line under it is "Enjoying
Sex." Then, "When we decide to have sex, we want it to be satisfying — whether
we are women, men, intersex or transgender, married or single, young or old,
straight, lesbian, gay, or bisexual. " (Now I know why their publicity says
"sexuality education" instead of "sex education." I have only been in this
website about three minutes, and I’ve already been introduced to words that
aren’t even in my spell check.) "Enjoying your sexuality is a normal, natural
part of life." (Now I’m told that all these behaviors are "normal" and
"natural.") "Most of us have taken risks when we have had sex.." (There is no
consideration that the reader may not have had sex and might consider that
normal.)

Next they have a nice list of problems that can come with
sexually transmitted diseases. Good. But then a few lines down I read,
"Exploring safer sex can make sex more satisfying." I don’t see the abstinence
consideration here. Is abstinence anywhere in this website? To the left I see
specific diseases. Let’s try HPV, since it is arguably the most common STD, and
there is little evidence that condoms have significant preventative affect. Most
of the information presented by PP here can be directly found in the information
provided by the

Center for Disease Control, but edited and brought down a notch. I found no
misrepresentation, just reorganization. Finally,
the 570th word on this page is "abstinence!"..along with four other ways to
"reduce your risk." No comment on their relative effectiveness.
I won’t be responding to their fund appeal.

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

January 23, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Yesterday afternoon I had the opportunity to be on a press
release conference call with Ben Stein, Walt Ruloff, president of Premise Media, and Paul Lauer,
founder and President of Motive Marketing, as they
discussed the movie Expelled, opening in April of 2008. Paul lead the discussion, feeding
questions to Ben and Walt. Apparently Walt first approached Ben about the idea,
and after looking into the issue, Ben realized that there were many shortfalls
in the theory of evolution that somehow were not coming to light. A little more
investigation, and he concluded that the information was indeed suppressed. As
for Walt, his background is computer technology. He spoke of how rapidly this
science has advanced in the last few decades, and he attributes this to the fact
that "everything can be questioned," and therefore tested, alternatives
explored, and new discoveries made. He then contrasted this with biological
science, where questions are only allowed if they conform with the existing
paradigm–Darwinian evolution. Yes, many discoveries have been made in biology
in recent decades, but not because the theory of evolution compels them. And
compared with computer technology, where there is no such baggage, biological
advance is a snail’s pace. In their research they have found scientists who were denied
grants by NIH and NSF simply because they suggested empirical investigation of
alternatives to naturalism. Their conclusion is that the constraints are not
scientific but political, and therefore the fix must be political–a law
protecting scientists from scientists. They fell short of mentioning the Academic Freedom Act,
but the movie will obviously set the stage.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Science and faith | 3 Comments »

January 19, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

One of the arguments I hear against allowing God in science
is that the Gap theory kills scientific investigation. The Gap theory they are
referring to is, "If we just say God did it, then there is no further reason to
investigate." This sentiment only makes sense to a person who is not motivated
by faith in God. The reality is that science as we know it is the product of
Christendom. Just as Christians once owned slaves as the world did, Christians
once believed in many superstitions.  For thousands of years people around
the world have believed superstitions because they believed that the "gods" were
whimsical and competitive, with natures hardly more honorable than our own. But
the Judeo-Christian God is not that way. He is understood to be orderly,
logical, purposive, and powerful enough to reflect that nature in all He has
made. That is why Christendom would not accept that the world around us was
incomprehensible. That is why it was Christendom that made alchemy into
chemistry. That is why it was Christendom that made astrology into astronomy.
That is why Johannes Kepler would not give up on discovering the mathematics of our
solar system. Kepler and many other founders of modern science believed in the God of John 1:1, where it says, “In the Beginning was the Word.” The Greek word used there in the original is not the only Greek option for “word,” it is LOGOS–the root of our English word “logic.” So read that verse, “In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.” It says that the Judeo-Christian God is the logic behind the universe and all that we see. I just recently discovered the beautiful website of a Christian amateur astronomer, motivated by faith in that God to pursue his hobby. Check it out. Is it not motivational to think that when you look into a telescope that
you are looking into the face of God?

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