January 30, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

To kickoff the Jan 2010 release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on DVD in the UK, a debate was arranged via phone between ID theorist Stephen Myer and Oxford evolutionist Peter Atkins on Premier Radio UK. I found the whole radio hour to be amazingly one-sided, with all logic brought to bear on the ID side and only name-calling and posturing in support of evolution. In his closing arguments, however, there was a particularly striking statement made by Professor Atkins as his last point (beginning at minute 52:01):
“Everyone, both of non-religious and religious disposition, should take pride in the fact that the human brain has emerged and is capable of understanding, understanding seemingly without limit. I think that’s a wonderful, wonderful organ, and a wonderful aspect of the physical world; and for people like Stephen (Meyer) and his colleagues to suggest that there is an area where the human mind cannot penetrate, cannot get understandable, comprehensible explanation, I think that’s a denial of humanity.”
I am struck that an appeal to pride would be made as the final argument against considering an alternative view. If asked what the greatest enemy of truth is, we might be tempted to say, “a lie!” But it isn’t. A lie may be the opposite of truth, but a lie that does not appeal to pride will not be believed. The greatest enemy of the truth is pride, because without pride, a lie has no power.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 18, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

Does it bother anyone else that we are supposed to be “going green” by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? I learned in my ninth grade biology class that GREEN plants need carbon dioxide to “breath” just as animals need oxygen. I also learned, probably long before that, that green houses were places that green plants grow better. So some how by reducing carbon dioxide we are supposed to make Planet Earth “greener?” Fundamentals like that cause me to look a little harder at all the statistics that are supposed to make us responsible for global warming. Why is it that they include figures like how many pounds of carbon dioxide humans and their industries have put into the atmosphere each year, but I can’t find anywhere what percent of the earth’s carbon dioxide that is at any given time? One example is this link by UC San Diego. Glance down to the graph showing the rise in carbon dioxide captured in polar snow. Are the any studies on how fast carbon dioxide escapes from polar snow? This would be vital to any indication of change over time.
In that same paragraph in which that graph first intrudes, there is an explanation of the increase in CO2 ppm that includes a logarithmic conversion. Logarithmic conversions are useful when measuring things that increase by huge multiples in comparing their significance, as with the Richter Scale for earthquakes. They are absolutely useless in comparing two numbers where one is not even double the other. Perhaps it was included so that the average reader would get lost and just accept the conclusion, in this case that “we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale.” Anyone with four-function math skills can tell that 360 divided by 280 is closer to a fourth in difference than it is to a third (28.6%). The actual increase since 1957 is a little over a fourth. For the sake of argument, let’s use logs and give them the third. It certainly sounds more dramatic to say that the number is more than a third of the way to doubling than to say it’s gone up by a little over a third, which is of course the same thing, but without using the word “doubling” it sounds less ominous.
OK, so assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by one third since 1957. During that same time frame the population of humans (Remember, they are the villains in this story.) has increased from less than 3 billion to around 6.8 billion, which is MORE than double. Sometimes people are forced in a direction against their better judgment, but it’s more powerful to direct their judgment by withholding certain information.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 10, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

If you believe there is no god, I don’t blame you. Very few people who “believe” can actually give a reason why they believe. They just say, “Do it.” So you just don’t. So what evedence would convince you that there is a god? How about just to believe there is a supernatural realm?
I think the first thought of most of us would be some kind of undeniable, supernatural display. (I’m thinking lights, sounds, and awesome appearances.) I’m afraid that’s a contradiction in terms. If it is “supernatural” (outside of normal experiences), then it is by definition, “deniable,” because it has no reference point in our reality. Not only would no one else believe you, but you would be hard pressed to believe it yourself after just a little time. Maybe it was a dream, induced by greasy pizza.
What if others saw it, too? Better, but still not there. How many others? How long ago? If you don’t believe in
God, then how convinced are you by stories of “miracles?” Events, no matter how many witnesses, lose credibility over time. They are not testable, therefore not “scientific” knowledge.
So it would have to be something tangible, testable, replicable in the sense that you could always find it. You could go back to it, point others to it; and others could verify it was there, and is continuously there. Testable implies some undeniable cause-and-effect, or there is no connection of facts, no evidence of anything.
As usual, the cause-and-effect must constitute a bridge between the known and the unknown. In this case the know effect is measurable with our senses, and the unknown cause is not detectable with our senses. So far, I am not suggesting anything beyond modern chemistry. In this case however, the “effect” must be defined as “natural,” while the “cause” portion of the bridge must be defined as “supernatural.”
Defining the effect as natural is easy. It could be anything detectable as proposed above. It is known and experienced to materially exist, but it must have one additional characteristic. It has to be something that undeniably has not always existed. It must have come into existence at some point in history, thus making it undeniably part of a cause-and-effect relationship.
But the supernatural cause portion must also meet two specific tests. The cause must be sufficiently supernatural to have no rational explanation within any known or even suspected laws of chemistry, physics, or other sciences. While we are at it, let’s throw in no known mathematics. If the cause portion of the bridge is rationally explainable within our experiences, then the whole cause-and-effect is within our realm of experience, and it is natural, not supernatural. There is no bridge. It gives no clue about the supernatural.
But the cause must also have some link to our reality. It must somehow relate to something in the material world as we know it without being in and of our “natural” world. That something must be a parallel material existence that has a measurable natural cause.
For these two criteria in the cause to converge with the two criteria for the effect in a cause-and-effect relationship, four conditions must be detectable: (1) the effect is something material (2) that has not always existed; (3) there is no rational cause for what exists within suggested laws of science or mathematics; yet (4) what exists has a parallel material existence with a known measurable cause. Stated another way, for “cause-and-effect” to bridge that supernatural-natural gap, the effect would have to be completely in our realm of experience, while the cause would have to be one that we could recognize in form, but with no possible origin within our material experience.
May I suggest consideration of such linked material evidence? If the same criteria used by archeologists to conclude that markings on chards and ancient walls are written language are in turn applied to DNA codes, the inevitable conclusion is that DNA carries a written language. I dare say there is no definition of written language that will work consistently for archeologists, or even SETI, that would exclude the messaging that we know to be carried in DNA. DNA carries written language.
(Note: Materially, DNA is a string of organic compounds that may be arranged in a virtually infinite number of ways, thus allowing it to carry a language. Scientists may hope someday to recreate DNA-type molecular strings in the laboratory, but this is simply a language medium, not the language itself. The medium, whether DNA, papyrus, silicon or whatever, is irrelevant. The language exists apart from the medium and could be transmitted through other mediums, even though we may know it through only one.)
The only known cause for written language is intelligence. That is, the language had to be designed with a specific application in mind. May I repeat, “mind?” Our only material experience with minds capable of composing and writing language is humans. Human intelligence is the only known cause with the effect of written language.
There is no rational and natural explanation for DNA carrying a written language, and yet we know that only intelligence causes written language. The conclusion is that DNA carries a written language imposed upon it by an intelligence outside of what we call “natural.” The logical conclusion is that the written language carried in DNA is both intelligent and supernatural in origin.
I believe I have said nothing here that is inconsistent with the logic of Stephen Myer’s in Signature in the Cell, though his logic begins and ends on different grounds.
Myer’s argument begins with science and ends with science. My argument begins and ends instead with a priory assumptions about the supernatural. This is because most people do not reject ID (intelligent design) arguments for scientific reasons. They do it for strongly-held, though possibly subconscious, beliefs about the nature of God, which include assumptions about His participation (or lack thereof) in the universe as we know it. The person following this logic must have no preconceived limits on what can be concluded from the thought process. Without that, any attempt at an honest conclusion is short-circuited. Though some might claim that they reject theology for scientific reasons, they in fact reject science for theological reasons.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

January 2, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

I went into my local Barnes & Noble bookstore today to consider a copy of Stephen Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell. From all accounts, it’s making quite an impression, though apparently not on Barnes & Noble: Upon asking for where I might find it, the store employee escorted me to the collection on comparative religion. A book on DNA is located in “comparative religion?” I guess that’s OK, as long as one understands that the religion it is compared with is Darwinian evolution.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

December 13, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Despite “Climategate,” and a growing number of outspoken scientific skeptics, the global warming summit plowed ahead. What else could they do? There is a lot invested in the idea that man is causing global warming: Grants are less likely to be issued for what man cannot change, and how can he change it if he did not cause it? I’m hearing some common liturgy, like “Show me the peer reviewed opposition,” when the opposition is not allowed through the peer review process. The deaf ear of the politically correct is scary, but not as scary as what lies at its heart. I am afraid that the political bulldozing of free scientific inquiry into questioning Darwin has bled into other areas of science. That once “scientists” discovered that funding and publication could be protected for one dominant opinion in one area of science, it could be done for another. Who cares about finding the truth? It can only slow down fame and fortune. Who cares about stifled enterprise and joblessness when the appearance of a united front is more valued? I just heard a quote I love: “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”~Flannery O’Conner.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

September 27, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

One of the basic assumptions of evolution, and not an unreasonable one, is that life developed from simple to complex. This is logical, because the simpler something is, the more likely it would come into existence by random events—the only possible source, if no intelligent intervention can be considered. From this comes a general principle that the simpler an organism is, the more likely that it is primitive, or even possibly the predecessor of more complex forms of life. Thus we see simpler animals being called “primitive,” and organisms lacking a membrane-bound nucleus being called prokaryotes (roughly, “first seed”). And the simplest prokaryotes are called archaebacteria (“ancient bacteria”).
There is another assumption of evolution that is related to the first: To keep the evolutionary process as simple (and design-free) as possible, there is no backtracking allowed. In other words, once a new life component comes into existence, it stays there or disappears permanently. In any given advancement stream there is not a coming into existence of complexity, a reversal, and a reintroduction of the same complexity again later. The probability of this is a geometric leap. The practical corollary of this requirement of process simplicity is that any organism that is missing some feature cannot be the intermediary between two other organisms that have that feature.
This is all well and good, until you actually try to sequence known organisms by complexity. For example, archaebacteria are considered to be simpler (more ancient) forms of prokaryotes, having similar simple structure; yet they have a higher DNA language identical with eukaryotes (a name which roughly means “better seeds”).
Let’s go up a notch and try again: The simplest know animal (multi-cellular organisms called metazoan) is the Trichoplax adhaerens (placozoan), the only known species in its entire phylum. This organism only has four types of cells in its body, placing it way behind sponges, which have around 50. The problem here is that it has extracellular proteins in common with all other animals except sponges—a problem if it’s supposed to be the poster child for oldest evolved animal.
Science textbooks never bring this up, but it is why they tend no to longer picture a tree of life, with organisms at the junctures; but instead show a binary branching geometric, with know animals always at the ends of branches. They know there is no evidence for sequencing.