March 11, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

Yesterday I received a request for a link on LinkedIn that read as follows:
“You were one of my professors at Texas A&M. This would be back around 1992. Time flies by very quickly. I appreciated your values and integrity. I did enjoy your class. You probably do not remember as you have had many students over time. Hope life is treating you well.”
No, I don’t remember him, but I am impressed that he remembered me during a time when I was myself a PhD student, teaching three times the course load allowed for faculty by SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools). That was a very tough time in my life. I had no idea I was leaving a good impression on anyone, especially one that would surface 20 years later.
I post this just to say, you never know when someone else is taking note; and you may leave a lasting impression, even a positive one, when times are toughest for you.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

November 6, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Language is an indicator of culture, and I hear married couples unintentionally giving ground in the culture war. The word “spouse” is handy for referring to unspecified married partners, just as “sibling” is useful in referring to either a brother or sister. When addressing a mixed audience, I might say, “Take time to talk with your spouse.” I might use the plural when addressing a mixed audience about our spouses. But why would I ever say anything about “my spouse?” I am a male. My wife is a female. She is my wife—a much more specific term. “When addressing an entire audience of married women, I should speak of their husbands, not their spouses. I don’t remember hearing this generic term substituted for husband or wife in decades past, but now I hear it much too often on and off stage. Why does it matter? Aren’t people just being lazy in their speech? I don’t think so. Who wants to blur the lines about whether a male is married to a female or that a female is married to a male? If I allow the terms “wife” and “husband” to drop from my vocabulary, I have taken a giant step backwards from valuable ground in the culture war.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

October 23, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Some philosophers and/or scientists today argue that the mind is the product of the brain. This is a natural corollary to their presupposition that only the material exists. But I wonder if they have stopped to consider that the only way they are aware of the material is through their minds. It would therefore be more logical to argue that the mind is the origin of the brain and all things material. It is the beginning of all experience, material or not.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

August 26, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

On August 18, 2011 Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry was asked by a young boy, “How old do you think the earth is?” That one blind-sided him, but he figured out that the mom had put the boy up to the question and replied with his view of the teaching options offered in his state of Texas—evolution and creationism. Not exactly right, but he had short notice. I’ve had plenty of time to think about it, and though I’m not running, interested in running, or capable of running, I think the best answer would be, “It doesn’t really matter what I think on that question, son. What matters is that you have the opportunity in school to think for yourself on the evidence and make up your own mind.” Most kids don’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

July 31, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

About a month ago my wife and I went to a therapist in The Big City next door. We knew nothing about light therapy, but were willing to check out this “alternative medicine.” We are OK with exploring such things, realizing that thousands of years of experimenting with plants and exercises should produce some treatments of value, regardless of the explanations given to them by their providers. I, for one, have found an exercise similar to tai chi to relieve me from ever going back to an MD or chiropractor for back pain.
But back to my story: As we waited in her office-home, I first noticed the raw crystals on the shelves. (I’m a rock hound.) Then my wife pointed out the religious symbols on the walls and spiritual books and pictures, most having reference to crystals or Taoism. When I asked the therapist about her personal belief system, she replied, “Oh, I embrace all religions.” Funny, I didn’t see any crosses among the symbolism. She is a pantheist, which means “all-god,” or “all-the-gods,” or even “all-is-god.” No one, including pantheists who claim to, can embrace everyone else’s beliefs when some of those other beliefs say they are the only way. Even other religions that say they respect Christ as a great prophet (along with Mohammed) or among the appearances of god (along with Krishna) do not include the cross; because the cross has one meaning—There must be a substitutionary payment for each person’s short-fall before a perfect God.
That statement is huge. It includes that there is one and only one absolute and just God, who desires a relationship with us enough to pay a cost we cannot overcome any other way than His personal payment. Some religions say Christ is or was a god, but that does not distinguish them. Some say Christ made the first or major payment for sin, and then we must keep our end of the bargain or it’s all for naught; but that does not make them unique or distinct. There is one and only one “religion,” if we can even call it that, that says we are entirely incapable of earning any part of favor with God (OK, or a right relation to the universe). Why is that so distinct? It flies against human nature to not earn the ultimate prize. Why would any human make that up? They wouldn’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

January 24, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Today one of my students called, because he couldn’t get past one the steps in a software case I’ve written for them. It has an Excel basis, and when students enter inconsistent data or skip steps, red messages appear in an effort to set them straight. This student could not figure out how to follow the message. After explaining the easy solution to his dilemma, I made a note to myself to tweak the software to make the message clearer. I can fix it with an additional “if-this” statement. (=IF(and(A1>0,SUM(B1)<1),..) But even though I’ve used this basic software with thousands of students, creative students seem always able to find new ways to misunderstand or do it wrong. Fortunately, tweeking is possible for the next class.. and the next..
But it occurs to me that this is not what we find in nature. Sure, organisms change over time with changing environmental conditions, but the programming, as far as we can tell, does not go through “tweaks.” We find organisms that utilize certain alleles to be more successful at surviving to reproduction than others in certain environments; we have even found microorganisms that swop DNA, and evade extinction; but what we don’t find is brand new information in the DNA program. It’s always recycled from somewhere else.
We are even hard pressed to prove that any given organism, or organ, or organelle for that matter, could be improved upon with a few tweaks. Evolution’s classic example bit the dust in 2010, when it was discovered that the human eye really is optimally efficient with its so-called “backward design” of blood vessels and light sensors.
If evolution were actually happening, then science should be replete with examples of organisms with features not-quite-ready-for-prime-time. Evolutionists know this, and constantly list potential candidates for this condition, each of which is toppled over time with discoveries of underlying purpose (another word evolutionists don’t like).

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

November 6, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

Tonight my wife and I enjoyed another (prerecorded) episode of the Discovery Chanel’s Life TV series. The series is filled with beautiful, painstaking photography and fascinating facts about our natural world.
However in order for people to benefit from this, they must constantly be subjected to Darwinian correctness. I say “correctness,” because it’s not just the facts that are presented, it’s that they are said a certain way.
For example, every time narrator Whoopee Goldberg made reference to a creature that has a unique ability, she would say it “has evolved” the amazing characteristic, regardless of whether there is any fossil record of the development of the feature. But when it was noted that any of today’s creatures was identical to its entire fossil record, Ms Goldberg was obliged to say that it “has remained unchanged over millions of years.”
So, what’s wrong with this? Two things: First, the carefully selected words would never be interchanged. Never could Ms Goldberg say that an animal “changed” into its present form, nor would she ever have liberty to say that over millions of years an organism “had not evolved.” To say that something had not evolved, even if it had not changed, would be anathema!
Second, evolution must be continually reinforced in the minds of the audience, even though it has nothing to do with the facts being presented. For example, any time a feature was mentioned as having evolved, no reference was made to what it had evolved from. There was no evidence, just the presumption of evolution. It sounds so intelligent to say “evolved,” in a nature show, even though it has nothing to do with the facts being presented. Likewise, on the flip side, when reference is made to no change, there must be insertion of the phrase “millions of years,” even though the show is only about life today.
This is why most people who believe in evolution believe in evolution. They aren’t dumb. They have just never been exposed to the evidence and allowed to make up their own minds. Maybe they never will. They just constantly hear the presumption of evolution, and assume it’s a slam dunk. Maybe it isn’t. If they ever find out, it’s going to be because they take the initiative to find out for themselves. The Discovery Channel certainly isn’t going to help them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

May 2, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

OK, so I usually don’t post a new blog the day after the last one. This one I have to. Discovery institute just published its audio blog, ID the Future, highlighting the appendix argument for Darwinian evolution. Being an appendectomy survivor, and having written on it here in AcademicFreedomBlog, AND now with personal experience to vouch for some of the discomforts we are learning to be associated with loss of the appendix, I must encourage you to listen.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

March 5, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

It’s always refreshing to see a paper like the New York Times publish a piece that makes a point I made in my blog months earlier. Yes, there is strong parallel between the way objections to the global warming belief system is being handled and the handling of objections to Darwinian evolution. People are noticing the parallel and viewpoint discrimination is being addressed in some state legislatures.
Interestingly enough, the author engages in another parallel herself. She positions opposition to the global warming belief system as religious, just as defenders of status-quo evolution position its objectors. This blankets all Darwin skeptics, even though their ranks include prominent agnostics, atheists, and people of other diverse religious positions. There is no reason to assume the same does not also hold for global warming scare objectors.
Notice that no science is ever alluded to in the Times article, only opinions and categorizing of the opponents (read that “name-calling”). Perhaps white evangelical Protestants are more likely to not believe the global warming dogma, because they already see the misconduct of orthodox scientists in squelching the evolution debate. Does this somehow mean the objectors are wrong? What does it matter what reason motivates a person to propose a scientific investigation. What should matter is if the hypotheses and subsequently accumulated evidence passes the rigor of the scientific method.
Why even talk about what some pole says about people’s opinions? Why is the evidence not the issue instead of opinions? The article frames white evangelical Protestants as bad guys because they are more skeptical of the global warming consensus than the general population. (We are given no information about what black evangelical Protestants think, so they may be more or less skeptical than white.) The way the argument is framed obscures the larger truth: Only 36% of the general population buys the idea that there is a human-induced global warming issue. In my math classes that would be considered quite short of a majority. Does the author of this article somehow miss that her politically correct view still represents the minority of Americans?

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

February 12, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

Dr. Paul R. Frommer may be Professor of Clinical Management Communication at University of Southern California, but that’s not what got him listed in Wikipedia. That took writing the Na’vi language for Avatar. This is no small feat, and writer-director James Cameron wanted it to be real, complete with grammar, syntax, the works. He go it, but it took Frommer five years of commitment to pull it off, from collecting the sounds and grammar rules to some very long days on the set, helping actors pronounce the words.
Just as one need not understand perspective and shadows to know that a picture looks real, so the general public has no clue why the Klingon language in Star Trek or the Na’vi language in Avatar sound so real. It’s because they are real. Someone with knowledge and skill invested major time and effort into inventing them. I’m sure Frommer’s previous data collection from 30 languages was no small part of his preparation to invent Na’vi, which by show time could boast aobut 1000 words.
Yet today many biologists find it difficult to lay aside their “training” and recognize that the language in DNA is no less dynamic and no more likely to occur by accident. DNA is composed of a 20-letter alphabet in a never-repeating series with virtually a never-ending possibility of combinations. Even though this truly random option occurs nowhere else in the universe as we know it, this is not the most amazing part. The really amazing part is that DNA is actually used to carry a language, complete with grammar, syntax, the works. We discovered it because it works. Each sequence comprises a series of commands that are in errantly carried out by molecules and organelles, resulting in the construction of proteins necessary for all functions of a given organism, including the molecules and orangelles that carry out the construction. In the human genome alone the language contains 30,000 words, and the average “word” is 250 letters long. There is only one reasonable explanation for why it seems so much like a real language: because it is real. Language only comes from minds.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »