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 »

August 20, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Israel is the epicenter of history. As Joel Rosenberg and many others before him have pointed out, it is not only Israel, but Jerusalem and even the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is not a religious conclusion; it is what the evidence says.

I used to dislike history more than any other required
subject in school, because the whole thing was just memorizing ransom dates and
wars. It wasn’t until I took a(nother) required church history class under
Kenneth Scott LaTourette that it all began to make sense. History is one
continuous story. Not only that, but it also has one continuous plot. Why is the
Middle East always in the news? No, it’s not the oil. That only accounts for
interest in the last 100 years. What about the previous 5,000?
Watch the 90-second video again if needed: Israel is always in the center–a
country with no natural harbor, no vast mineral reserves, no corner on any world
market, just the most fought-over land in the world. Why?

And then there are the people themselves. There is no other
people who lost their nation, were dispersed around the world, and yet continued
to exist as an entity for more than a few hundred years. The Jews remained a
distinguishable people for 1700 years before reclaiming their homeland in
1948. This in itself should be enough to conclude they are somehow unique,
but add to that the repeated and focused attempts to wipe them out, and the probabilities say
they are " chosen."

What can one do with these facts? We must either accept the
fact that history not only has a plot, but also a purpose; or we can deny the facts. Oh, but
there is another more powerful alternative besides accept or deny: ignore the
facts.

Probability is the foundation of scientific discovery, yet
it is ignored when it comes to evidence for God.

Posted in History, Science and faith | No Comments »

July 20, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Have you been following the science news recently about
Homo floresiensis, sometimes referred to as the Hobbit? Some science
news sources refer to this short too-maker as " another
human species" or even just " human-like,"
yet the name "Homo" means human. Some say the find
can all be explained by evolution theory, while others are more open about the
controversy.

This last reference points out that the dating clearly
places the bones within our own (Homo sapiens) time, yet comparisons are
made with fossils, human and not, dated millions of years ago. Homo
floresiensis was buried with advanced tools, no sign of other humans around,
had a cranial shape that justifies analytical thinking, and must have gotten to
the isle of Flores by navigation. The only problem is the credibility of a
person three feet tall. So what?

Why can’t they just be recognized as short people, as in this
photo? Is the difference any greater than that between a
Chihuahua and a Great Dane? The only reason all domestic dogs are considered
to be the same species is that we watched the breading take place in modern
history. It doesn’t mean that they are two different species or even that they
are in the process of becoming two different species. They are just swimming in
different corners of the same gene pool.  Because evolutionists must find
differences to justify crossing from one species to another, we are led down
these rabbit trails that have never led to discovery, but have led to the
justification of one human mistreating another.
Humans is humans. Enjoy the variety.

Posted in History, Science and faith | 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 9, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

After dinner tonight my wife sent me on a killing mission. We got the keys to our new house on Monday, and now we are in the process of making it “ours.” That includes cleaning up the yard. The house was immaculately kept, but the shrubbery area has been taken over by all manner of nameless vines and crawly things not sold in Lowe’s garden section. So, my wife said to wade in there with the Round-up and spray anything that is not in bloom. I don’t know the plants in this area, and I was afraid I might wipe out something that blooms later. The general assignment was that if something was questionable, I should ere on the side of death.
As I was carrying out this duty, I could not help but think of the many probes we humans have sponsored to find life, any form of it, on the moon, Mars, etc.; and here I am killing it indiscriminately. How excited we would get over finding any of this stuff anywhere but earth! The hope is based on the idea that if it happened here, it could happen somewhere else. The operative word here of course is “happened,” meaning random or chance. Yes, if it happened here by chance, then maybe it could happen somewhere else by chance, but there are no numbers that support the idea that it even happened here once by chance.
I am amazed at the intelligent people I know who are suckers for “chance.” I see the billboards that say, “I won $122,817 at ________’s, and you can, too!” And on the billboard is the picture of some poor slob who has probably already spent it trying to win more. I have heard the lottery referred to as a “tax on stupidity,” and in general I agree. But recently I attended a conference with a fellow professor, a dean, no less, who took advantage of the location to cross the boarder and buy lottery tickets. How could he fail to grasp that in order for somebody to win $122,817 a lot of somebodies had to blow $245,634? The industry is regulated that way! And then there is a former dean of mine who cannot retire because of a gambling addiction.
I am afraid that our academic failure to grasp and teach what chance (probability) really means is linked with the requirement of randomness in Darwinian theory. Because of the implications of the principles of probability upon chance mutation of species or the chance occurrence of spontaneous life in an ancient pond, the subject is avoided. When the probability of these is pointed out, it is quickly sloughed off with, “it only needed one chance.” It couldn’t be sloughed off if people really understood how many zeros must follow that one chance. Probability says that life didn’t happen by chance on earth, and if we find it anywhere else, it didn’t happen by chance there either.
Nobody believes that this jungle in my yard came by spontaneous generation, but many intelligent people believe that the first life on earth came that way ..and that they will eventually win the lottery.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

May 26, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Evolutionists commonly suggest that Darwin’s theory of
evolution is neutral concerning God, but then contend that all objections to it
are by definition religious. I find this position fishy, and would suggest that
if one side of the argument must be religious, the other side by definition must
be, also. Evolutionists rarely acknowledge a difference between creationism
(belief in a creator and particular creation process to be accepted and defended
based upon religious texts) and intelligent design (the hypothesis of a designer
to be tested based on observable, and thus scientific evidence). May I suggest
that just as some people will not consider the possibility of Darwinian
evolution for religious reasons, so there are evolutionists who hold fast to
Darwinian evolution for religious reasons?

Recently I referred to a site that used the phrase "universal acid" to refer to Darwinian evolution’s power to erode away any need for
God. I would like to revisit that site to make clear the motives of those who
placed the information on the web. If you click on the website’s core name, http://www.mukto-mona.com/,
you will quickly be redirected to another page, http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/index.htm.
The words that you cannot read, because they appear and disappear to quickly,
are “Humanism & Secularism,” and “Secular site for freethinking, rational, humanists of
Bangladesh and other South Asian countries.” The purpose of the site is to
promote humanism (belief that humans are the ultimate beings) and secularism
(belief that there is no god), which the site posits are inseparable. That part, I agree with. The "universal acid" page is part of a series of pages ending with
Darwinism makes God unnecessary. This is indeed their purpose.

I will revisit this site again soon to walk through their
"logic" for the irrelevance of God, but for now let it suffice that defense of
evolution is not always with purely non-religious motive. Sometimes, the person
arguing for evolution may not even realize that they have bought into a
religious view that "science" must not only be objective about God, but also
devoid of conclusions about God. The truth is that any approach that begins with
qualifications on the conclusions about God and His roll in the process is not scientific. It’s religious.

Posted in Science and faith | 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 »

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 6, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Last month the New Your Times Magazine carried

this article discussing why humans might do good deeds toward others with
seemingly no payback. This is not an isolated article, but an
ongoing debate among behavioral scientists. The condition is an anomaly for the ubiquitous
buy-in to Darwinian theory, and this article is no exception. If one accepts
Darwinian theory as the "universal acid" that replaces all other foundations of thought, then everything must
ultimately be explained in terms of survival of the fittest. All altruism must
be somehow the result of something that benefits the doer (or else the gene that
causes the behavior will not be passes on). There is no way around it; believers
don’t have to like it–If Darwinian theory is true, then all human tendencies,
no matter how loving, patriotic, ethical, of otherwise giving they may appear,
must ultimately be motivated by selfishness.

Evolutionary psychologists have worked hard to come up with
selfish explanations for altruism, pro-social behavior, or whatever
they want to call it, but the gaps are blatant. The Times Magazine
article introduces four major contenders for Darwinian explanation, and then
shoots each down as not quite adequate to explain the philanthropy of
Bill and Melinda Gates.

May I suggest another possibility–not necessarily a
religious one? What about cognitive dissonance–the human need to make sense of
all things together and create balance in one’s own mind?
Cognitive dissonance
posits that humans will be motivated toward equality simply to balance their own
thinking about themselves and the world around them. For instance, if I am paid
less than the person next to me for doing the same job, all else being equal, I
will have a tendency to produce less than that person, just to balance what
aught to be. By this same logic, if one receives much, one would tend to feel a
responsibility to give or share with others. My two examples fit cognitive
dissonance as expressed in equity theory.This is not a religious concept,
and it can easily be explained as a capacity
that would contribute toward survival, so why is it not a contender to explain
altruism? Because it recognizes that humans alone possess the capacity for
cognitive dissonance. Regardless of its survivability, Darwinian thinking cannot
acknowledge that humans possess any quality that is not simply a matter of
degree in difference from the rest of the animal kingdom. (Darwin said that if
there are no degrees, his theory would "absolutely break down.")

This last example might also fit the concept of guilt,
which is hard pressed to find its place in Darwinian thinking. 
But consider an even larger step away from
Darwinism–gratitude. We have this word in English because we hold this concept
as viable. Gratitude informs my giving behavior when I expect neither return
(reciprocity) nor balance (equity), when I perceive that I am either incapable
of or not required to pay back. The concept implies that one can give post gain
(when there is nothing left to gain) and post obligation (when free from any
obligation at all). This can in no way be reconciled in Darwinian theory, and
yet we all hold this concept. Either gratitude exists, or Darwinian theory is a
universal truth. If you hold Darwinian theory as a universal truth, this could
cause you some cognitive dissonance.

Posted in Science and faith | 1 Comment »

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 »