August 31, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Would we come up with the same theories if we started with
today’s facts and a blank theory slate? Yes, I know this is impossible, because
much of what we "know" is stated in terms of support for one theory or another.
But allow me to press on:

When Roe v. Wade occurred in 1973, the womb was a black box, and what was
actually going on in there was anybody’s guess. It was easier to talk in terms
of a woman’s rights as being the only rights involved. Today, with new
technology such as 4D
Ultrasound, we can literally see the live baby in motion, and the question
of rights is broadened. If we had had 4D Ultrasound in place before 1973, would
the case have been determined differently? I suggest that is quite likely, so
the next question is, why doesn’t it simply reverse the case now? The doctor who
agreed to allow filming that became The Silent Scream, after viewing what he had done, never again performed
another abortion. Perhaps some day there will be enough back lash to recognized
the rights of the yet-born, but there is a huge momentum to overcome. Think of
all the men and women who in ignorance, or upon the insistence of well-meaning
friends and family, or because of their own personal predicament "exercised
their rights." How are they to reconcile with themselves this evidence? To say
the law must be changed is to say "I have been wrong all these years." With
every abortion there is pressure to never look back, regardless of the mounting
facts. This is not necessarily intentional, it may not even be conscious; it is
just human nature. (It is not my point here, but I cannot go on without saying
that the only solution to this cognitive dissonance is the acceptance of
total forgiveness from a loving God.) It is not simply a latter of logic and
facts.

The same question could be asked of Darwinian evolution: If
the theory had not been proposed until today, with today’s facts, would the
theory be the slam dunk that evolutionists claim? It might have some traction,
but it could be well argued that it would not have the grip it now has on
scientific thinking. When Darwin published Origin of the Species, 
the cell was a jelly ball with a hard center, easily conceivable as just a hop,
skip, and a jump away from mud. Today we know that no cell exists without an
instruction booklet of no less than 400,000 letters. So, why not just drop it?
Because of the investment in the doctrine by huge numbers of scientists whose
reputations are on the line. How easy is it for scientists around the world to
simply say, "Oh well, I guess the last 30 years of my publications were wrong?"
The evidence for evolution is not overwhelming. It is just non-negotiable. This
is not necessarily intentional, in may not even be conscious; it is just human
nature. Will the tide some day turn? I really don’t know, because the problem is
not one of logic or facts.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

June 29, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

A few weeks ago I said I’d return to the site that used the
term " universal acid" to refer to evolution’s "power" to eat away all opposing
arguments. It’s time.

The quote is from Daniel Dennett, and this particular web incorporates several ideas from
one of his books. Dennett is a strong evolutionist, but prefers to couch his
position about God as a benevolent acceptance that some people need God. This
particular site is more straightforward in positing that evolution removes ALL
need for God. Indeed, the purpose of the site is not to promote evolution as
much as to discredit God. Those who think evolution and the Bible are compatible
have yet to take one or the other, or both, seriously. This site does, and
begins its slideshow clearly stating its objective–to use evolution to make
"no room for God."

After supporting its position with quotes from those who
agree with their thesis, the next step is thestraw man approach: The
third slide positions all belief in fixity of species as Christian
(portrayed as the sum of all non-believers in evolution), even though it admits
that the idea originally came to Christendom via Aristotle. It also acknowledges
no other alternative to evolution for "Christians" than fixity of species than
fixity of species, even though Edward
Blyth, a Christian, first suggested to Darwin the idea of variance within
species. 

Slide four defines creationism as "the idea that God
created all species in their current form a few hundred years ago." I am aware
of no one who believes animals originated a few hundred years ago, much less the
major creationism proponents. And the major ones all agree that variation occurs
from generation to generation.

On slide five they begin their explanation of Darwin with natural selection as "Darwin’s most original contribution to biology." I must return to Blyth: in
1835 he published an article
in the Magazine of Natural History, in which he explains the principle of
natural selection, though not using the term: “It is a general law of nature,
for all creatures to propagate the like of themselves: and this extends even to
the most trivial minutiae, to the slightest peculiarities; and thus, among
ourselves, we see a family likeness transmitted from generation to generation.
When two animals are matched together, each remarkable for a certain
peculiarity, no matter how trivial, there is also a decided tendency in nature
for that peculiarity to increase, and if the produce of these animals be set
apart, and only those in which the same peculiarity is most apparent, be
selected to breed from, the next generation will possess it in a still more
remarkable degree; and so on, till at length the variety I designate a breed is
formed, which may be very unlike the original type.” (Eiseley, Loren C.
1959. Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection.
Proceedings of American Phil. Society.103(1059), 94-158, as reprinted in
Loren Eiseley’s Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X, 1979, New York: E. P.
Dutton, pp 55-56).

 The next couple of slides are dedicated to explaining
natural selection as the key to evolution. (I must interject here that you
cannot select anything unless something is there from which to select. There is no
discussion of where the something came from.)

Pages eight
through ten take on Design with Paley as the key witness, ignoring any design
arguments that have been developed in the past 150 years. In all, no formidable
arguments are presented for or against evolution. The only presentation is
opinions that favor their view.

My point here is not whether evolution is true or false,
but that the position is argued for religious reasons in some cases. Whether it
is in most or all cases, please consider the honesty of the arguments. That
honesty is crucial, and most obvious in disclosure of real facts, not quotes of
the opinions of others.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

June 20, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Last week NPR helped
celebrate the 20th anniversary of the discovery of prochlorococcus, the smallest
known organism to produce food by photosynthesis. And since it is responsible
for about 50% of photosynthesis, it is arguably the most abundant. As far as we
know, this guy is rock bottom of the food chain, being referred to as an
obligate phototroph. Let’s take that one at a time: obligate (essential)
phototroph (organism that produces its own food via photosynthesis). It is
essential for life on earth, at least as we know it, and it today produces about
1/5th of our oxygen. Though it contains only 2,000 genes, some scientists argue
that it is not the earliest form of life on earth, saying that its ancestor had to be a more
complicated cousin. Another interesting point, it only has about 60% of its
genes in common with its nearest known relatives. That’s less than you have in
common with a fish.

Allow me to think out load about this: All organisms must
survive by processing organic compounds that only come from organisms. In the
absence of all other organisms, the first organism must have produced its own
food, because by definition there would be no other source. The simplest known
food-producer, upon which we are dependent, requires 2.000 genes of DNA code,
and it is suspected of originating from something more complex. Also, it seems
that as we go "down" the "tree of life," the organisms are in many cases more
distinct from each other, not less. I don’t see us getting any closer to an
accidental (random) origin of life.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

May 29, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Today we turn in our modem and won’t have computer access until after our house closes in our new state. I will therefore not be able to post to this blog until at least the middle of next week. Do NOT think there is nothing to blog about. See you then.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

April 22, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I hope I don’t get spiritual here for some of my readers,
but this serves as a very applicable example of the "selfish generosity" anomaly
discussed in my
April 6 blog. A couple of days ago I realized that I had underpaid a
contractor for a fence installation on my property. I called him up and
explained that I owed him more money, and he quickly came to my door for the
difference. He thanked me profusely, understanding that I already had my receipt
and my fence. I just smiled. Get ready: Here’s the spiritual part. Once before I
remember correcting a cashier by giving her back some change. When she thanked
me, I said, something like, "It’s a God thing;" she replied something like,
"Yeah, it’s not worth going to Hell for." She didn’t get it, and I wasn’t going
to try to explain it to the contractor. May I try here?

According to my understanding of the Bible, my
salvation is free. That means that I cannot earn it, and I’m required to pay
no installments to keep it. The Bible says
God is just, so He should enjoy my restitution of the money. My sole
motivation was gratitude: I did it
for God’s pleasure, not my gain. Might I have done it to gain some reward in
Heaven? The Bible suggests that there might be such rewards, but it also says
that if I do my giving before other people (as I am doing by telling you this
story), then I have my reward already. So I did it so I could tell you and get your
admiration! No, I did it before I thought of telling you. And I wouldn’t tell
you afterwards if I wanted to protect some reward in Heaven. Whatever reward I’m
forfeiting here, I consider nothing for the sake of giving you this example..
so, I really did it for no other reason than gratitude, in this case, to give God pleasure. If one
really believes there is a God
Who offers free salvation, then this is not only how one should act, but
also why one should act. Can this really work? Most people don’t believe it can,
and that’s why they keep coming up with religions that offer rewards and
punishments for behaviors. But there are some people who really do believe the
Bible, and those who don’t, really can’t believe them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

April 10, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

The movie "Expelled" opens in theaters around the country April 18. To find a theater near you, go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php and type in your zip. Then notify your church groups! This is a great opportunity to get the message out in terms that anyone can understand.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

March 3, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

It has been one month since Robert Moore published his
scathing commentary on Expelled in The Orlando Sentinel, and he has
accomplished his purpose–readership. With 84 comments at my last count,
comments out-pace the text 12 to 1 in number of words used. He has obviously hit
a nerve by bringing up the creationism-naturalism debate, and based on the
article’s content, I’d say he illustrates the point very well. Moore is a true
artist with words, and proves repeatedly the skilled pen can accomplish more
with how something is said than with what is actually said. Moore claims the
movie preview was less than convincing, but I’m hard pressed to find much
content indicating that he went into the movie very open-minded.

He refers to the preview as "a stealth campaign, out of the
public eye," but then he posts the public link to the Expelled website, which
has been up since mid-’07. He was accidentally sent an invitation to a preview,
and knowing that it was intended for ministers, attended anyway. Then he seems
proud that he did not sign the non-disclosure statement that was requested as
part of the requirement for attendance. So please explain to me who is "stealth"
here. And do we not see some inconsistency in sneaking in and claiming to be
ethical for not promising to not reveal? It reminds me of when I was a kid and
considered it OK not to keep a promise, as long as I had my fingers crossed.

Here’s a good example of how Moore used words to cast his
meaning: "He uses anecdotes from a few Fox-over-publicized cases of people who
claim to have lost tenure/their jobs/their position in the scientific world for
daring to suggest the hand of a supernatural being in the creation of life. He
hasn’t a scintilla of proof of, well, anything. Then he has the audacity to
whine, "Where’s the data" when questioning cellular biologists and other real
scientists who build their lives around doubt, and finding testable, legitimate
answers to those doubts. Where’s  YOUR data, Ben?" Personally, I’d say Moore
sited data here, but does it in a way that it is missed. The
"Fox-over-publicized" part slants the meaning of everything thereafter. He says
"people who claim to have lost tenure," etc., for what he said in the previous
paragraph that they should not do–"daring to suggest the hand of a supernatural
being" was involved.

Another example, is his reference to what he calls "the
Holocaust denier’s favorite trick, probabilities, ‘math,’ to show how remote the
chances are that life was created by natural.. processes." Moore objects to the
way Stein relates Darwinism to the Holocaust, and here Moore relates the
Holocaust to the use of math to address science. I really don’t think it’s a bad
thing to use math to prove a scientific point, but it sure sounds illegitimate
the way Moore puts it.

Apparently Moore was pricked by a reference in the movie
about eugenics, for he felt like he had to object to that in particular. "There
were plenty of reasons eugenics caught on as an idea among certain
nationalist-conservative and even scientific circles in the early 20th century,
and most of them have nothing to do with Darwin." Note that Moore juxtaposes the
word "conservative" with "nationalist," and implies that scientists were
reluctant to join in the eugenics movement by using the word "even" to admit
they went along with the idea. And "most of them have nothing to do with
Darwin." Perhaps Mr. Moore is unaware that the eugenics movement was founded by
Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s first cousin. This is not what one might call a coincidence,
since Charles named a son after Galton, and that
son became the second president of the eugenics society, after his
godfather.

Nonetheless, I commend Robert Moore for bringing the movie
to a new level of attention. Nothing sparks interest like controversy, and Moore
is right about this movie in that respect. And who knows: perhaps because of
Moore’s review, someone will attend who actually is open-minded.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

February 25, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

There is an online game called
Photoshop Tennis, which
illustrates some valuable points about evolution. The game works basically like
this: A pictures is posted by someone, and others doctor the picture
slightly(?), one after another, using Adobe Photoshop. The results are sometimes
interesting, thoughtful, or funny. Darwin
himself made an appearance, in honor of his 199th birthday, but that one,
because of its strongly understood theme, is not typical of the works found at
Photoshop Tennis. That "theme" even seemed to some to require mention of the
Bible. The underlying concept has an obvious parallel with Darwinian evolution,
in that each picture is only slightly altered, and eventually major change has
taken place. But there are non-parallels, which may not be as obvious. Take for
instance Black & White or how about Mutant Fish.
First, the changes, no matter how slight, are not truly random. No one would
believe that the added person or bird or whatever in a picture is the result of
random digits dropped in. For one thing, they are recognizable. (They have
information.) All are obviously intentional and intended by someone exactly
where they are placed. Intelligence is required, regardless of how weird, or it
couldn’t happen. Second, the additions each take the picture into a new
direction. The more additions, the more bizarre and less meaningful the picture
becomes. For information to accumulate in a meaningful way, with any semblance
of direction, intelligence is not enough. There must be a united or integral
intelligence. In other words, one intelligent designer. This conclusion does not
require the Bible, just logic.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

November 7, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

I just got another one of those checks in the mail. You know: the kind that all you have to do is endorse and the cash is yours..and repayment doesn’t start until after the new year. And just in time for Christmas! Isn’t it ironic that the birthday of the greatest debt-payer is used as an excuse to get people into debt. Are we missing a point here?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

December 23, 2006 by Dr. Mc.

Americans who are dissatisfied with how long it is taking to make Iraq into an independent democracy should review their own history. Our Declaration of Independence did not receive the initial two signatures until 3 years after the Boston Tea Party, and the last signature was not added for another 5 years. The British Empire did not agree in writing to the new government for another 2 years at the Treaty of Paris. The interim required involvement from, among others, France, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, and American aborigines. Even then, it was another 77 years before our greatest internal contradiction was squarely addressed, and that required Civil War. But of course we began with an advantage. We began with a people who had some concept of self-government.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »