August 24, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Recently on my You-Tube submission about my PhD process I made the following comment: “We
are allowed to say that an organization was designed by creative human minds,
but not so for the cell. Evolution says it occurred as an accumulation of
errors, even though it is much more complex and functional than any Fortune 500
company.”

The person with whom I was
corresponding replied: “Comparing living organisms to things that people design
and build, as creatinists [SIC] often do [SIC] makes for an extremely poor
analogy and weak argument from the creationist side. Reproduction is very unique
to life; objects that we produce do not reproduce themeselves [SIC], and if they
could they would evolve as computer models have demonstrated. Reproduction, the
success of which is heavily reliant on environmental conditions, is key to
evolution.”

I did not address this argument on You-Tube, because it was off the subject.
The subject was that the professors on
my dissertation committee would not hear me out on less-than-full endorsement of
Darwinian evolution, regardless of my arguments.

Even so, the question raised deserves discussion somewhere, so I’ll do it here:

There are three phenomenon that easily can be compared between the theory of evolution of organizations (called
population ecology in the organization science literature) and the theory of
evolution of organisms (particularly, Darwinian evolution). These are a) the
generation of new types, b) the survival or demise of types, and c) the
proliferation of surviving types. My objector has rolled them together. Some
confusion is avoided by recognizing them as distinct. I will discuss them one at
a time in reverse order:

c) Organisms are indeed unique in
how they reproduce—A set of DNA is read and duplicated automatically upon
certain preconditions being met. But organizations are also reproduced. Not only
do the original builders of an organization tend to build more organizations
based on their initial success, but also other people see what works and copy
it. This is so “natural” that copyright and other infringement laws must be made
to protect some processes organizations do. For our purposes we can set aside
reproduction as a “uniqueness” in comparing organisms with organizations.

b) Organisms must survive in a
less-than benevolent environment. They must access specific materials (be they
oxygen, carbon-dioxide, water, food, whatever) from the environment, and what
they give off must be received by the environment without fouling it; or the
organism will perish. Organizations, by comparison, must receive raw materials
and financial profits, by producing products and services for which the market
is willing to pay; or the organization will perish. This is key to population
ecology theory, which argues that the “survival of the fittest” accounts for the
populations of organizations that we find at any given time and place. For our
purposes we can set aside survival as a “uniqueness” in comparing organisms with
organizations.

a) Organisms change to some extent
from generation to generation. I do not look exactly like my parents, but this
can be entirely accounted for in the mix of DNA between my two parents. Setting
this aside, mutations occur, which increase the options in the survival mix; and
may introduce permanent change in the organism type, if it helps the organism
“win” in the fight for survival. (An example would be
cycle-cell, which enhances survivability in the presence of malaria.) It may
also be the case that mutations increase variations that may not affect survival
(hair, eye, and skin color). Organizations likewise differ from generation to
generation of organization, because founders make mistakes in copying former
organizations. But they also differ from those that came before because the
creators intentionally make changes, thinking through and projecting what might
work better in the changing economic environments.

On this point organization change
has a leg-up on organism mutation, which has no such creative option. Darwinian
theory denies any opportunity for forethought or “purpose” in the generation of
change. There can be no goal in sight, not even survival. Organizations can not
only change from generation to generation, but organization change can take
place without an existing organization. (I teach courses on how this is done.)
Even though major reengineering and restructuring of organizations is difficult
and complex, it is a far cry more possible than an organism deciding to have
more legs or less gills. (No, tadpoles don’t count. They were programmed from
conception to make that change, and it is repeated every generation without
permanent change.)

In my dissertation committee I
never said that evolution was not a useful or defendable position; I simply said
that the theory of evolution works better when applied to organizations than to
organisms. Regardless of what one chooses to believe about evolution of
organisms, it should be clear that it is easier to support survival of the
fittest as a mechanism for continuous change among organizations than it is
among organisms. If this is denied, I don’t see how it can be done on the basis
of logic. And if not logic, then what?

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | No Comments »

May 4, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

This week as I prepared to move from my home of 12 years, I
came across a "novel" I started in high school. It was in a Nifty spiral
notebook (if anyone can remember those), and it was sort of an
absent-minded-professor story. I was probably inspired by the black-and-white
Disney movie, but in my story the hero was trying to discover a way to create
life. As I read some of the lousy text I wrote back then, I was struck by the
fact that at that time in my life I bought whole-heartedly into the theory of
evolution. As with most other people, evolution was a given, and I was sure my
Christian upbringing was compatible with it all; it was just a matter of
discovering the details. As a junior scientist, I clearly understood that
neither the Urey-Miller experiment nor those of anyone else had achieved life, but I
assumed that in time someone else would. Why not my hero? Also, as a junior
scientist, and officer in my school’s science club, I knew that all life requires cell structure. As for what a cell contained, I was only slightly ahead of Darwin, knowing that
a cell had a nucleus, some jelly-like stuff (protoplasm), and a cell wall. All my hero had to do was get
the required chemicals into the right three-part arrangement, add a spark, and
life would happen! I had no concept of the sophisticated parts and incredibly
complex processes required for even the simplest cell.

By that time in high school my personal fossil finds were
overflowing boxes in my basement, and science fair awards lined my shelves.
Never once had I heard a scientific criticism of the Darwinian evolutionary model–only
religious ones. Then I was invited to a meeting on my college campus, and one
45-minute audio tape blew it all out of the water. One meeting, one audio tape.
Where had this information been all my life!

I abandoned my belief in God during my PhD program, but
that did not make Darwinian theory any more plausible. Then when I discovered
that my dissertation could not continue until I pretended confidence in
Darwinian theory, my doubts about God took a huge hit. If that group of scientists
would work that hard to prevent me from even doubting this theory, then there must
be something powerful and even real to be feared from this consideration. Slowly I concluded it must be the Truth.

Today I never hear any talk of scientist hoping to create
life from non-life, and information prevents my faith that life could ever occur
without intelligence behind it. But should some scientist (or scientists) ever
achieve life in a test tube, there would remain only one step to prove–that they
were not intelligent.

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | No Comments »

December 23, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

This YouTube video presents a turning point in my life. When I went before my
dissertation committee, I was basically an agnostic who wanted to believe that
God is real. The evidence and attitudes I had experienced in my PhD program had
stripped me of any confidence in God’s existence. Everything, and I mean
everything, could be and was explained with no reference to God, including
god-consciousness itself. Then came the day that my dissertation process was
stopped by certain committee members who inadvertently discovered that I lacked
confidence in Darwinian evolution as a sufficient explanation for the origin and
diversity of life. I was forced to profess belief in Darwinism, without any
consideration of opposing empirical or theoretical evidence, in order to proceed
with my degree plan. It did not matter that my particular dissertation, or even
my chosen field, had little to do with Darwin’s theory.

I never remember the word "religion" being mentioned in
that encounter, but the message was loud and clear. Suddenly it made sense why I
had never heard any arguments to balance the atheistic materials in my course
work. Suddenly it made sense why the attitudes and beliefs around me were so
consistently atheistic. It made sense why peer-reviewed journals contained so
little confession of the obvious shortfalls in evolutionary theory. I had
thought it was because the academics were more learned, deeper thinkers,
pursuers of truth at all costs, uninhibited by the superstitions and traditions
of men. Silly me! Just the opposite was unfolding right before my eyes. Opposing
evidence was selectively and systematically being filtered out. Peer review
doesn’t work if dissenters cannot become peers. If some work so hard to suppress
the evidence, then the evidence must be stronger than I thought.

There was one principle I had learned about culture,
through my international travels, even before pursuing my PhD in sociology. That
was that the most powerful ideas of a culture are never voiced. They are passed
on and reinforced by the way things are done, and depend as much on what is not
said as upon what is said. If they were voiced, they could be questioned. If
they could be questioned, then they could be rejected. But if dissention is
never heard, then change never happens. It is a uniting and sustaining force of
any culture; and academia is a culture.

Don’t get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for scholarly
work and academe. The far majority of scientists function productively with no
sinister intent in the taboo within which they live, that no evidence can ever
be interpreted as supporting a higher being, no matter how outlandish the
alternative explanations may be. If pressed on the issue, most will say, if they
are willing to discuss the issue at all, that religion must be kept out of
science; not realizing that the position that God never has, would, or could
intervene in the universe IS a religious position. They consider themselves to
be open-minded, all the while wearing blinders.

It reminds me of when I was dating the woman who later
became my wife. She candidly remarked once that certain subjects were taboo at
my families’ dinner table. I had never thought about it. I simply obeyed the
rules unconsciously. When I pointed out the same about her family, she flatly
denied it.. until I gave her examples.

For some it is more serious. When confronted with the idea
that Darwinism deserves critique, some I have encountered react with such
irrational forcefulness that it could be compared to standing on their air hose.
That critique is interpreted as threat tells me that critique is not only valid
but needed. It tells me there are deeper reasons than logic for avoiding
consideration. It tells me that for them protection is more important than
truth. It suggests that there is a fear that God just might really be there.

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

October 23, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting and hunting fossils with a geological engineer in the mountains of Montana. Besides wearing me out on the hike (He is ten years my senior.), we had a vigorous and extended conversation about the geological record. In the process, I asked him a question that I have never heard anyone else ask, and for which I have never gotten a satisfactory long-age answer: The conversation went something like this: He was pointing and speaking of the earth layers around us, and I asked, "Where did the dirt come from?" He didn’t know what I meant, so I pointed out, "There are layers of fossils one on top of another. Once the lower layer was laid down, where did the dirt come from for the subsequent layers?" He went into an extended explanation of tectonic plate movement and subduction. (This is a good example of an argument fallacy called Ignoratio elenchi.) I replied, "I have no problem with the idea that earth’s plates move or that one may move underneath or on top of another, but I’m talking about sedimentary layers. If approximately 70-75% of our land surfaces are covered with sedimentary rock and dirt, the second, and all subsequent layers, could not possibly come from the remaining 25-30% of surface." He explained the lifting and erosion cycle, and that some mountains of the world are documented as still getting higher.  "Yes, I agree that uplift and erosion take place today simultaneously, and that some land is rising. But my question is, why are trilobites in the bottom layers and dinosaurs are buried on top of them? The dinosaur dirt must have been laid down from the top onto the trilobite dirt, not from the bottom up. If one layer was laid down, and then millions of years later another layer was laid down without disturbing the dirt already in place, where did the new dirt come from–and the layer on top of that and on top of that?" Our conversation extended through the hour decent on gravel roads, but I eventually allowed him to change the subject without a satisfactory answer. His last answer was, "It came from the sides." This of course ignores the observation, that there are no "sides." To date the only explanation that makes since to me is that all the dirt must all have been in suspension at the same time and gradually settled apart, perhaps taking weeks or months, not millions of years. If any reader of this site has a millions-of-years explanation to offer for where the dirt came from, please offer it. Thanks.

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | 1 Comment »

September 29, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

This came to me by e-mail, and I want to pass it on without my comment:
I once wrote an entertaining account of my autistic son and our experience with a bunch of psychologists during a time when autism was believed to be caused by maternal rejection. Parents rebelled against the theory, and parents of autistic children are no longer subjected to psychiatric treatment. However I finally had my story published for the enjoyment of my grandchildren and descendants. iUniverse will supposedly publish anything for a modest fee.

I recently became interested in the debate over materialism. I’m not committed to any specific non materialist scientific theory, but I am passionate about academic freedom. I hate the tactics materialists use to stifle criticism of their materialistic formulas — such as the notion that “natural selection” (the grim reaper) is capable of organizing genetic accidents (random mutations) into complex biological systems. Materialists denounce all critics of RM&N as “ignorant creationists”. So I rewrote my story, adding a few questions about materialism to each chapter. “What is intelligence?” “Does free will exist?” “Does belief in an immaterial soul require belief in a personal God?” etc., and asked iUniverse to republish it.

They refused, claiming they feared they might be sued. I offered to remove anything that might cause potential law suits, but they still refused.

Who is going to sue them? Freud? I gave all the doctors in my book an opportunity to read what a I wrote about them, and they had no comment. Besides, I never used real names. The only difference between the book iUniverse published and the book they refused to publish were those questions about materialism. Attempts at suppression of ideas seems to be an automatic response for materialists.

You can read the story, with the questions, at:

http://30145.myauthorsite.com

and judge the potential for libel for yourselves.

Berthajane Vandegrift

Posted in Culture & society, Personal story | No Comments »

June 28, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

It has been several months now since my appendix was removed (see entry April 10), and I am yet to detect what my body no longer does or gets that it did or got when I had an appendix. The evolutionist’s response to this is that it is a vestigial organ, one made useless by evolution away from the need while the organ remains. I have several problems with this concept: First, if the organ is useless, then why is it there at all? Nature is very frugal with energy, and anything not used can disappear rather quickly, like the eyes of the blind cave fish (permanently and genetically) or the legs of a developing tadpole that gets no opportunity to exercise its new legs on dry land (a missed developmental stage), or even the atrophying of the limbs of an accidental paraplegic (recession simply from lack of use). Yet the organ is there generation after generation. Second, I have a problem with the vestigial concept, because there is no clear ancestral function for the organ, including in our supposed more primitive relatives. How could we make such major changes as is suggested by the stated relations and yet the appendix remains unchanged?

It would make more sense to assume that the organ has one or more functions that are quickly duplicated by other organs in the absence of the appendix. When my appendix ruptured, my intestines took on a new function of walling off infection. Isn’t it rational to assume other organs could do the same? Why do we have two kidneys when one can do the job? Why do we have two lungs, when a person can live with one? Two ovaries? Two testicles? Two parathyroid? We are replete with duplication. the problem with this assumption is not that it is without parallel in the body, but that it flies in the face of evolution. How could an organism evolve a back-up system, which is needed only once over many generations? The answer is, it can’t. Evolution is an insufficient explanation. The real question is, why isn’t that OK?

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | 1 Comment »

May 23, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

The Tenure and Promotion Committee at Iowa State University last month denied tenure to Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez. Gonzalez has appealed to the president of the university, who is expected to issue a decision on the case in June. Having served on a T&P Committees, I appreciate that no one likes to either deny or be denied tenure, but this case is a little suspect. He is appealing because Gonzalez has “published 21 papers since 2002, many in top journals,” according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. He also has received grant funding that partially supported him and the university for 3 years, and he has a normalized h-index of 13 (a measure of how many times one is sited by other scholars). The next highest in his department of 10 is a  normalized h-index of 9. So why is tenure not awarded? Some suspect it is not because of what he didn’t do, but because of what else he did. In 2004 Mr. Gonzalez co-wrote The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, a scholarly work that openly supports the Intelligent Design philosophy. This same book was developed into a video, which the Smithsonian Institute was to co-sponsor in premiering.. that is until a backlash of objections from key supporters came in. (I do not find it hard to believe that this is a factor in Gonzalez’s tenure denial, especially since my own dissertation proceedings were stopped when it was discovered that I though “natural selection makes more since as an explanation of organization populations than when applied in biology.” I basically had to lie that I changed my mind in order to get on with my PhD.) Please note from Gonzalez’s university bio that he suggests no objection to evolution or an old universe. That is not the real issue in Intelligent Design. It is the Design part (implying a Designer => implying an accountability beyond ourselves). Is this really possible? The most telling statement in the quite honest Chronicle article is, “‘It looks to me like discrimination,’ said one astronomer, who did not want to be named, fearing a backlash for speaking up in favor of an intelligent-design proponent.” If you would like to (nicely) express your opinion to university President Gregory Geoffroy (pronounced JOE-free), upon whose desk this issue now rests, you may contact him here..  

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

April 10, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

I know it’s not good to go more than a week without posting to a blog, but I have a pretty good excuse. Wednesday night was a rough one, and Thursday morning the abdominal pains were so bad I asked my wife to drive me to the ER. X-rays revealed nothing, so why had my intestines shut down? It was Monday afternoon before exploratory optical surgery revealed a major abscess and a ruptured appendix. Yes, I could well have died, as many have told me, but that’s not the most amazing part. Apparently, when the appendix ruptured and began to abscess, parts of my intestines moved over to block off the infection from the rest of my body. Then a fiber began to form that knitted the intestines into the new position, so nothing could seep past. This reduced my pain (confusing the doctors), and prevented the infection from quickly spreading throughout my abdominal cavity, which likely would have been fatal.

Now for the truly amazing part: What my body did was above and beyond the standard call of duty. That the body would wall off infection is not unknown to doctors, but think about the context. This is an infection response that cannot be described in terms of chemical processes. Notice that the description above speaks of the event as what the body did in response to a need. That’s the only way to make sense of what happened. That can only be done from a Design position. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that can explain response to a need. The best evolutionary theory has to offer in explanation of the immune system is that natural selection would preserve good things; not cause them. And in my case, as with many others, the body’s good response was not needed until past child-bearing years. The whole immune system is a huge enigma to evolutionary theory.

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | 2 Comments »

September 3, 2006 by Dr. Mc.

While in my PhD program I completely lost my belief in God–not because of the facts, but because of the cultural environment. You can read about my experience in this article. I have now recovered, and am passionate about the abuse I experienced.

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | No Comments »