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 »

July 6, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

On July 1, with amazingly little press, Louisiana passed
the first-ever law to protect teachers who wish to add scientific criticism to a
curriculum that requires the teaching of evolution. It’s called the Louisiana
Science Education Act, and here is the full text.

Regardless of press acknowledgment, this is quite a
landmark, It passed by a large majority, but I personally have worked in one state for five years to
get a law with similar purpose
on the books, and many other states have attempted and failed.

That being the case, one might rightly ask, "If it’s so
hard to get passed, why did it pass with such a high vote?" In my experience a
bill with similar purpose passed every committee vote but one, and that was a
tie. It passes, because senators know that their constituencies would have them
vote for it, but the trick is that it seldom gets to the floor for a vote. If an
item is hotly divisive, even with majority support, legislators work hard behind
the scenes to keep it from coming to a vote. One or two people can lock down the
entire process. I have watched this process first hand, too many times.

Now that it’s passed, the local newspaper represented the passage as if Louisiana has gone out on a lonely limb, even though the paper had good information
to the contrary. Those who oppose it, bemoan it as "anti-evolution,"
even though it specifically states, "A teacher shall teach the material
presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter
may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help
students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an
objective manner." Apparently they consider analysis after presentation to be
threatening. Threatening what?

In any case, this suppression of facts and distortion of
the law are perfect examples of why teachers in every state need protection if
they are to simply "analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an
objective manner."

Posted in Politics, Science and faith | 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 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 »

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 6, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

George W. Bush has been criticized for letting his faith interfere with his judgment as president. Everyone lives out their faith in daily life, not just George W. Bush. It’s just a matter of what their faith is. Those who believe one should not allow their faith to affect their daily lives simply live out their faith that there is no God that affects daily life.. and that affects their daily life.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | 1 Comment »

December 16, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Ron Hubbard is convinced man is basically good; the
Bible says man is basically sinful. I have come to believe that where one
falls on this issue bears on how one sees virtually every other issue. Gun
control is for those who see man as basically good, because if we take away
guns, people will be good. It’s the weapons that are bad. It’s the same concept
that Obid
expressed in verse 2,000 years ago, when he said that the Iron Age began strong
weapons and thus the corruption of man. If man is basically good, then we should
be able to talk out our differences with other nations instead of going to war.
If man is basically good, then we should not have a death penalty, because the
criminals are just misguided. If man is basically good, then welfare should work
smoothly, because people will not take advantage of the system. Democracies will
flourish, because no one will seek power over others. If man is basically good,
then there will be a Utopian government some day, because the basic building
blocks of government are all the good people. And evolution must be true,
because every generation is a little better than the one before. The very idea
that somewhere in the distant past man chose to go into a fallen state is
perfectly unacceptable to any of the above. It makes more sense that if man is
basically good, then man is moving toward God. No, better yet: Man is becoming
God.

But the only democracy that lasts is one that has a balance
of power. Three branches of government work not because the rulers are good, but
because no one branch can overpower the other two. The
"invisible hand" of economics works not because people produce for the sake of others, but because
competing self-interests drives up production and drives down prices. It works
for people to bear arms, because no one will let anyone else take control.

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

December 2, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

I won’t make a lot of comment on this, because the evidence
pretty well speaks for itself. Please consider the following two websites: 
Texans for Better Science Education (TBSE), and Texas Citizens for Science (TCS).
Each highlights news items; each relates them to Texas
education. Sounds like they are both on the same page, right? Look a little
closer. They are polar opposites in their definitions of science. One supports
all scientific views, and one supports only those that are in line with
Darwinian evolution. Perhaps I should say one is for real science and one is for
diluting science with religious claims. It depends on which site you use to
describe the other.

My comments will be brief, because they are not about the
rightness or wrongness of these opposite views, but about their approaches to
the issue and the way each portrays the other. Check it out: On the TCS site you
will find words like "illegitimate" and "distort" to describe opposing views. In
their Nov 29th entry they frame an event as "part of a
duplicitous marketing
campaign created by Intelligent Design Creationists of the Discovery Institute
to damage science education in general, and biological evolution instruction in
particular." They are correct in putting "intelligent Design" and "Discovery
Institute" in the same sentence, but no where will you find the words
Intelligent Design and Creationists juxtaposed on either an intelligent design
or creationist website. Do a Google search on "intelligent design creationists,"
and see how many of those sites claim to be either ID or creationist in
viewpoint. The answer is zip. Only Darwinian evolution sites use that phrase to
lump two distinct views together.

Then check out the other site. To describe the same event,
TBSE says the person resigned after rules violations, and they site the
Austin American-Statesman newspaper. The TCS site cites only themselves,
even in the site they cite. TCS uses words like duplicitous and
mendacious to describe
their opposition. TBSE gives little effort to sophisticated or even plain
adjectives to describe either their own or opposing views, apparently content to
allow the facts to speak for themselves. TBSE makes no effort to prevent
Darwinian views from being presented in schools, and in fact argues for both
"strengths and weaknesses" to be presented. TCS is all about preventing
alternative views.

I see no need to discuss the two views here. I find a
lesson in simply looking at tactics. Without even investigating the arguments
further, which one would you suspect of "illegitimate" accusations or to "distort" the facts? Which
would seem more likely to have a bias concerning religion?

Posted in Politics, Science and faith | No Comments »