March 6, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

Yesterday as I drove through a school zone after hours, I saw three kids separately in the road ahead. Two on skateboards and one walking. I slowed down, but the car behind me quickly passed. After all, the speed limit control had expired for the day.
This is illustrative of what Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his 1978 address at Harvard”, referred to as “legalistic life.” He saw in America at that time that “the limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws.” If it’s not against the law, then it must be my right.
It reminds me of young children who check to see if their parents are looking before they cross the street. They are not mature enough to know that they should check the streets for what is safe, not the parents for what is allowed. The person who passed me only demonstrated concern for the law, not the kids for whom the law was written.
Solzhenitsyn observed that of us over 30 years ago. God help us if we have become as a nation so immature that our only conscience is the law.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Notable Quotes, History | No Comments »

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 | 1 Comment »

November 13, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

The Christian Science Monitor reported that as of November 14 “military investigators’ position thus far that Hasan acted alone and without instruction when he attacked Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center Nov. 5, killing 13 and wounding 29.” Many conservative bloggers and pundits are arguing that Hasan should be considered as, and tried as, a terrorist; and that the whole thing would not have happened but for political correctness blinding us from the symptoms of the impending danger.
That may well be, but I think they are still missing a larger and more important point, one also missed during the Bush administration and also hidden as a result of politically correct word “terrorism.” Ladies and gentlemen, our enemy is not terrorism, and there can be no war on terrorism. Terrorism is a technique. It’s killing and maiming innocent people to demoralize and disorganize them. To say there is a war against terrorism would be like the British among the American revolutionaries saying that they were engaged in a war against fighting behind trees. No one wants to offend Muslims by pointing out that in every attack that we label as “terrorism,” the perpetrators have acted in the name of Allah.
No, that’s not my point either. Most Muslims seem to live peacefully enough, no more willing to believe and act on every word of the Qur’an as God’s word than most Christians do in respect to the Bible. The culprits are that faction known as radical Muslims, but that is still not the carefully hidden truth of the matter.
It is important to know if Hasan acted alone in order to trace down any “sleeper cells” or other yet-to-be-discovered strategies in opposition to the US. But the pursuit is also fueled by an intentional ignorance. People want to believe that we are threatened by an organization or a group of organizations like organized crime. It isn’t. The enemy is not a new kind of mafia. It is an ideology. Let me be more blunt: It is a certain belief about the nature of God—Who He is, what He values, and what He rewards and punishes. Yes, a person can buy into and act upon an ideology, especially a religious one, without being recruited into an “organization.”
Some rightly fear that if this fact is acknowledged by the masses then Christians will come under even more attack as all religious beliefs are rolled together. This may also be, but it still does not reach the depths of the distasteful truth.
In his small but powerful book Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer argues from the very first page, that “what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” The more I think about this, the more I am convinced it is true.
The carefully hidden truth is that everyone has a belief about God, and that (here’s the part most difficult to swallow) that belief drives all persons’ behaviors. It does not just affect the behavior of those people who say they believe IN God. The statement concerns what we think ABOUT God. All of us have a belief ABOUT God, which is driven by what we think about God.. or is it the other way around? It doesn’t matter in this case. Those who think they have freed themselves from God and religion are wrong. What they think about God drives their behavior no less than it does for those who have different conclusions about who and what He is (or it is, depending on their belief system). We all are driven by religious beliefs, and we cannot help but act on them and (even irrationally) defend them against those who would have us compromise them. Some will think I have digressed from the usual topic of this blog. I haven’t.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Notable Quotes | No Comments »

October 3, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Have you met Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus), your “newest oldest ancestor?” Friday’s Wall Street Journal has a full article and slide show online about this fossil find from Ethiopia.
I never cease to be amazed at how every few years a new fossil ancestor is found for humans. Each time it is older, and every time it is closer to our split-off from other primates. Hence, Ardi is our “newest oldest.” I would encourage any reader to carefully decide if they are being led to conclusions by “experts,” when their personal logic might conclude otherwise.
First, do the scientists have any reason to want these fossils to be our ancestors? Yes, they are more likely to get grants, publicity, promotion, and status among peers if they find our newest oldest ancestor. This of course does not in itself say the information is less than accurate, but I suggest it does make me want to review the claims less credulously. Now let’s review:
The slideshow provides excellent images of the fossils and their reconstructions. Slide 1 shows the bone structure of the foot. No, not the hand, the foot. It is obviously prehensile. Remember, the claim is that these bones represent the closest relative to both humans and monkeys. Move on to Slide 3 for a look at the hand. The caption says, “Ardi, unlike apes and chimps, had supple writs, strong thumbs, flexible fingers and power-grip palms shaped to grasp objects like sticks and stones firmly.” Note that the bones of Ardi’s fingers are curved and combine to form a major curve, as is true for all climbing monkeys. Don’t take my word for it. Compare the fingers of a human hand with those of various climbing monkeys in these pictures. Ardi’s fingers are indeed designed for grasping objects like sticks.. in particular, tree branches.
Moving along to Slide 4: “Ardi and her relatives, the researchers say, made their home in the woods, not on Africa’s open savannah grasslands long considered the main area of human development. Their distinctive pelvis suggests they walked easily enough.” Notice how easily enough Ardi is pictured walking on a tree branch, which accommodates the foot thumb more readily than flat ground. Note also that the pelvis of tree monkeys in general is designed to allow movement of the legs straight forward for climbing, yes, unlike gorillas and chimps, which are primarily ground dwellers.
Now consider Slide 7 where you will find a rendering of how these scientists picture Ardi. Notice that the most human features are the upper arms, shoulders, and torso. Slide 9 tells us how fragmented the bones of the skill and pelvis were without comment on how likely the scientists are to have gotten the assembly right; and in Slide 10 we are finally shown just how many bones were used to construct our “ancestor.” Notice which bones are present and more to the point, which are missing. Let us not forget that the most human part of Lucy was her feet, which were never found. It seems that the less data we have, the more human the parts must be.
Thinking for myself, I have not come to the same conclusions as the experts about Ardi’s place in human ancestry. What do you think? What you think really is more important than what you are told.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ~ Galileo Galilei

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

July 13, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

According to a summary published
in Science Daily, researchers at Oregon State University have made a “fundamental new discovery” about the nature of birds that makes
the evolution of birds from dinosaurs pretty much untenable. Recapping a research article published in The Journal of Morphology, they explain that the femur (leg bone from hip to knee) of
all birds (and unlike all other land vertebrates) is in a fixed position in
relation to the hip. Otherwise, they could not hit the massive transfer of air
into and out of their air sacs as is necessary for flight. So what?
So birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. “It’s really strange that no one realized this before,” says Devon Quick, because “this is fundamental to bird physiology.” Fundamental and they
just now noticed.
I’m really not as interested in bird physiology as I am the reason it went unnoticed in the last hundred years of the advancement of science. Quick was quick to say (sorry, I couldn’t resist
that one), “We aren’t suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past.” That would be a surefire career-killer. So
they couch the statement by suggesting “birds and dinosaurs may have shared a
common ancestor, such as the small reptilian thecodont.” Remember? You’ve seen them in every family tree of dinosaurs. It’s the little guy at the bottom of the chart, placed there as if it really was an animal species. It isn’t.
It’s a grouping of animals that paleontologists know have a few common characteristics, but no common decent. The scientific word for it is paraphyletic, but the easier to understand word is “myth.” So why even invoke the word? The inconvenient truth is that it saves face for the fact that there are no common ancestors.
But the Science Daily article even goes on to quote another scientist as saying, “There’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises
questions.”
There! I can’t believe they really said it. Will next year’s high school biology books leave out the picture of the thecodont at the bottom of the dinosaur family tree? Will the bird femur problem make it into those same books? Ever? What do you
think? After all, if they did, who would buy all those feathered
dinosaurs everyone has invested in?

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

March 22, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Last week an official letter was sent by the ACLU and others to leaders in the Obama administration protesting the denial of academic freedom for certain persons seeking admission into the United States. The apparent reason for denial of these persons’ visas was outspoken ideological differences with our government. I am not here concerned with whether these people should be allowed into the United States nor do I necessarily take issue with the missions and approaches of all the organizations that signed the letter. I would however, like to recommend that the ACLU read again this letter that they have posted on their website the next time they wish to object to a teacher who simply presents ideological or scientific criticisms to Darwinian evolution theory. To make it easier for them, I have copied the entire text below, highlighting phrases and whole sentences that could as easily fit the
mistreatment of Darwin critics; whom apparently the ACLU finds more threatening to our civil liberties than political dissidents.

March 18, 2009

Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano:

Over the last eight years, the Departments of State and Homeland Security revivedthe practice of “ideological exclusion,” refusing visas to foreign scholars, writers, artists, and activistsnot on the basis of their actions but on the basis of their ideas, political views, and associations. As a result of this practice, dozens of prominent intellectuals were barred from assuming teaching posts at U.S. universities, fulfilling

speaking engagements with U.S. audiences, and attending academic conferences. Many of those barred from the United States were vocal critics of U.S. foreign policy.

We are writing to urge you to end this practice. While the government plainly has an interest in excluding
foreign nationals who present a threat to national security,no legitimate interest is served by the exclusion
of foreign nationalson ideological grounds.

To the contrary,ideological exclusion impoverishes academic and political debate inside the United States. It sends the message to the world that our country is more interested in silencing than engaging its critics.It undermines our ability to support political dissidents in other countries. And it deprives Americans of a right protected by the First

Amendment.See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972).No legitimate interest is served by the government’s use of the immigrationlaws as instruments of censorship.

In fact, ideological exclusion is a practice that history had discredited long before the Bush administration. During the Cold War, the United States used the ideological exclusion provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act to bar, among others, Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez, Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, Italian playwright Dario Fo, British novelist Doris Lessing, and Canadian

writer and environmentalist Farley Mowat. Those exclusions came to be seen as an embarrassment to the country, and virtually no one proposes now that those exclusions served the national interest. History will judge the ideological exclusions of the last eight years in the same way. Such exclusions are ineffective as a matter of security policy and they are inconsistent with the ideals that make this country worth defending.

The undersigned organizations are eager to see the new administration commit itself to these ideals. Accordingly, we respectfully ask (1)
that you evaluate applicants for admission to the United States on the basis of their actions rather than their political beliefs and associations; (2) that, as to foreign scholars, writers, artists, and activists who are deemed inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act, you exercise your discretion to waive inadmissibility except where articulable national security interests unrelated to the applicant’s political beliefs or associations make waiver inappropriate; and (3) that you immediately revisit the specific cases listed below:

• Iñaki Egaña. Mr. Egaña is a respected historian and writer from the Basque region of Spain. In March 2006, Mr. Egaña traveled to the United States to conduct research for a book about Basque author Mario Salegi, who was a target of McCarthyism during the 1950s. Upon disembarking the plane, however, Mr. Egaña and his children were interrogated, detained for 24 hours, and forced to return to Madrid. The government has provided no explanation for Mr. Egaña’s exclusion.

• Haluk Gerger. Professor Gerger is a Turkish sociologist and journalist. He was jailed by Turkey in the 1990s for his writing about Turkey’s Kurds. Twice during that time, in its 1994 and 1995 Country Reports on Human Rights, the U.S. State Department cited Professor Gerger’s treatment as an example of the misuse of antiterrorism legislation to stifle freedom of expression. In 1999, when Professor Gerger was on trial again for his writings, the U.S. issued Professor Gerger and his wife 10-year, multiple entry visas. In October 2002, however, when Professor

Gerger and his wife arrived at Newark airport, border officials informed them that the State Department had cancelled their visas. The governmenthas provided no explanation for Professor Gerger’s exclusion.

• Adam Habib. Professor Habib, a South African national, is a prominent human rights activist and public intellectual. Although he earned his PhD in the United States, when he attempted to visit the United States in October 2006 for professional meetings, he was interrogated for seven hours at the border and then told that his visa had been revoked. After U.S. organizations filed suit to challenge his exclusion, the government notified Professor Habib that he had been denied entry on terrorism-related grounds. It still has not has not informed him, however, of the specific legal or factual basis for its decision. The evidence strongly suggests that Professor Habib has been excluded not because of any

connection to terrorism but because of his political activism.

• Riyadh Lafta. Dr. Lafta, an Iraqi national, is Professor of Medicine at Baghdad’s Mustansiriyah University. In the fall of 2006, Dr. Lafta applied for a U.S. visa in order to attend a speaking engagement at the University of Washington that was to take place in April 2007. His visa application was denied. Although the government stated that the denial was the result of a “miscommunication,” the circumstances strongly suggest that Dr. Lafta was refused a visa because f conclusions he had drawn in a 2006 article regarding the number of civilian casualties in Iraq.

• Tariq Ramadan. Professor Ramadan, a Swiss national, is a professor at the University of Oxford and, in the words of Time magazine, “the leading Islamic thinker among Europe’s second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants.” In 2004, he was offered a teaching position at the University of Notre Dame; only days before he was to begin teaching, however, he was told that his visa had been revoked under a provision that renders inadmissible anyone who has “endorse[d] or espouse[d]” terrorism. After U.S. groups filed suit, the government abandoned the accusation that Professor Ramadan had endorsed terrorism. It continues to exclude him now, however, under the INA’s “material support” provisions. We believe that the material support provisions do not apply to Professor Ramadan, and the evidence strongly suggests that he has been excluded not because of his donations but because of his vocal criticism of U.S. foreign policy.

• Rafael de Jesus Gallego Romero. Father Gallego is a parish priest from the village of Tiquisio in North-Central Colombia, where he ministers to miners and peasants, facilitates community support initiatives, and runs a local radio station. Father Gallego is also a vocal critic of government-supported paramilitary units acting on behalf of multinational mining corporations. In the fall of 2008, Father Gallego received invitations to travel to the United States to address universities, activist organizations, community radio stations, and churches. The U.S. government simply failed to adjudicate the visa. Father Gallego eventually learned from the Provincial Jesuit, who has ties to the American Embassy, that his visa was going to be denied “for national security reasons,” buthe has never received a formal notification that his visa was adjudicated, let alone an

explanation of the grounds on which it was denied.

• Dora María Téllez. Professor Téllez was a leading figure in Nicaragua’s revolution against the brutal Somoza regime, and has served in her country as a government minister, political activist, and professor. She has also been a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy. In 2004, she was appointed Robert F. Kennedy visiting professor in Latin American Studies at Harvard’s Divinity School and Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. When Professor Téllez attempted to enroll at a language class in California in preparation for that post, however,< class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">her student visa was denied on the ground that she had previously engaged in terrorist acts, despite the fact that she had been granted visas to enter the United States in the past.

Ideological exclusion compromises the vitality of academic and political debate in the United States at a time when that debate is exceptionally important. The practice was misguided during the Cold War and it is misguided now. We strongly urge you to end the practice and to immediately revisit the cases noted above.

Sincerely,

(Among others)

American Civil Liberties Union

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

American Federation of Teachers

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

October 4, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Dawkins: “Atheism is not a faith!”

Lennox: “Of course it is! You believe in it, don’t you?”

The “God Delusion” Debate; Alys Stephens Center, Birmingham, AL; October 3, 2007.

Knowing that the two debaters hail from the same university (Oxford), I expected the “debate” to have all the authenticity of Saturday night wrestling. I was wrong. Apparently this was their first debate with each other, in fact their first meeting. With a book title like
The God Delusion, I expected Dawkins to be arrogant. Wrong again! Though he was bold in his opinions, he came across to me as gracious and even humble at times. If there was any imbalance in the debate, I am aware of only one occasion: At one time Judge Bill Pryor, acting as moderator, called time on John Lennox. Lennox did not stop, and Prier allowed him to continue.  Immediately afterwards Prier called time on Richard Dawkins, who stopped immediately, sacrificing his point. The debate was spontaneous yet well focused, with obvious points of passion. I made notes as best I could, but I will be studying it again when I
get the DVD.

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

September 14, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

On June 18, 1940 Winston Churchill made his
most famous
speech in an effort to mobilize England against a powerful enemy. There is
one sentence often quoted. I will quote the previous two with it for context:

"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island
or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life
of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then
the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known
and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister,
and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us
therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the
British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still
say, ‘This was their finest hour.’"

If they failed, Churchill predicted "a new Dark Age..
perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." No, I’m not taking
it out of context. He was not speaking of the atom bomb, because he was speaking
of after the war. He was speaking of a Dark Age of knowledge, just as the first
so-called "Dark Age" was supposedly a time of ignorance and controlled thought.
Hitler was using Darwinism as an ideological weapon to control the minds of
people into believing that his was the superior race, and no other had a right
to live and thrive. Science is a "light," and by it people find their way. If
the light is perverted, the people unwittingly and inevitably go the wrong way.

Posted in Culture & society, Notable Quotes, History | No Comments »

September 9, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

"The great obstacle to progress
is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge."

Daniel Boorstin–historian, former head of the Library of Congress.

Posted in Culture & society, Notable Quotes | 1 Comment »

August 15, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

“Two world views are in conflict.. two philosophies of life.. one of these two worlds must break asunder.”

There are actually two groups of people in the world: Those who divide people into two groups of people and those who don’t.

I have read that Adolph Hitler made the top statement, but I have only documented the attribution as far as the Axis Powers, in a 1942 publication. In any case, it is a common position predicted by social identity theory. One premise of this sociological theory is that we all tend to consider ourselves to be in the “in group,” and everyone else is in the “out group.” Further we tend to consider all out group members to be alike, hence two groups. As an example, evolutionists seldom distinguish between creationists and intelligent design theorists. Likewise creationists often represent the masses as having only two world views, one Christian and one pagan. The result in both cases is that they can be blind-sides by the variety of attacks by those opposing their view. Evolutionists can pigeonhole scientists as religious and abandoning science, simply because they voice legitimate objection to Darwinian evolution. Some atheists do that. But likewise Christians may think they see softening in the opposition, just because they introduce “spiritualism” into the debate. Ernst Haeckel, whom Darwin cited for his now controversial illustrations of evolution using embryos, professed and promoted Monism (see Politics under Haeckel), an Eastern religious thought. Alfred Russel Wallace, who simultaneously published an almost identical theory of evolution with Darwin, became a mystic in later years. Darwin’s response to this was “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own & my child.” Even though Darwin was displeased with Wallace’s introduction of spiritualism into his theory of evolution, that does not mean that Wallace was any closer to a Christian Worldview. There was still a strict avoidance of direction by a Designer.

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