donate to sck cultural center

Poetic Tribute to a Veteran

Fitting for this Memorial Day weekend. I recently wrote this brief poem after visiting a very old and ill man at NHC Healthcare in Glasgow.  --

Down the lonely hall is the sick and struggling man.
I seek to place some final comfort in the stranger's hand.
With pictures of his battleship prominently on the wall,
I learned the gentle soul was an old warrior, after all.
Downcast I addressed him, humble in my stance,
confessing I had never gone to fight in foreign lands.
Then blushed with sincerity, precise with his aim,
he comforted me that there was no reason for my shame.
He fought against injustice, he fought tyranny.
Now he fights the devils whispering defeat to me.
So quick! Rush to his flank! Clutch his hand today!
Because another old warrior is about to fade away.

The Trick Question about Marriage

"When did you stop beating your wife?" That's, of course, a trick question that will get you into trouble no matter how you answer. The whole gay marriage legal issue is even more a conundrum of confusion.

Think carefully about the recent federal court ruling that Kentucky's marriage law, upholding marriage as between a man and a woman, violates the U. S. constitution's 14th amendment. 

Laws can't discriminate against any particular class of people, the federal judge ruled according to the constitution. Yes, homosexuals are a class of people. Hard to deny that. But it's also been hard to deny another stubborn reality; at least it remains incredibly hard for many, if not most, Kentuckians. The long historical definition of "marriage" as only between a man and a woman is the one that has fundamentally shaped the civic culture of Kentuckians and other Americans well before any of us were born. Many, if not most of us, just don't have the mental categories to perceive "marriage" any other way. At least we can conceive that what homosexuals are doing can be legitimately defined as "civil union" in a public sense, or perhaps furthermore as "loving commitment" in a personal sense. But "gay marriage," more than merely a legal struggle, forces us to preserve any sane trajectory of "logic" itself. More than ever before, words mean everything. 

History also teaches us something else. Revolutions usually need confusing chaos from which the revolution's new categorical thinking and culture can arise. So now, you are either trying to sort out and assess the new logic of "gay marriage," or you are leaving the thinking to others. If you're among the latter, this is actually no longer a revolution for you. It might as well be life as you'll always know it from this point forward. What about the new normal?

"God-olution." What's Wrong with This Word?"

What's wrong with the word "God-olution," besides the fact that I obviously just made it up? Well, quite a bit, I think. 

An old friend just replied with interest in my previous blog post on evolution, creationism, and the Nye-Ham debate. He adheres to a view of origins called theistic evolution, and asked for my opinion on it.

First I'll admit that there are many intelligent, God-honoring Christians who are excellent scientists yet also theistic evolutionists. Among the most notable is Francis Collins, who directed the monumentally important and tedious Human Genome Project. 

Theistic evolution basically asserts that God somehow and for some reason used the processes of evolution generally promoted by mainstream science to bring about complex life, including humans. But theistic evolution gets snagged by at least a couple of logical conundrums that cannot be cleared away, at least in my thinking. 

On the one hand, there's the logic from mainstream evolutionary biologists themselves, the majority of whom dislike it.  Most of them insist that evolutionary theory stay strongly entrenched in the thinking of scientific materialism (also called "naturalism") that, by definition, can in no way allow "a divine foot in the door." Otherwise, we open things up to the chaotic intellectual mess (according to them) of "God of the Gaps" thinking. 

So, according to theistic evolution, biological changes that appear to be random mutations to the scientist are slight, intentional modifications by the deity to bring the organism along toward the ideal form He has in mind. When evolutionary leaps have occurred that science can't seem to explain, we just say God stuck His nose in the process, here and there from time to time, just to make sure His marvelous machine of nature stays on track toward His ultimate goals. 

If this were true, according to most materialists, it would logically be a science stopper. Instead, all science must operate solely within the understanding of purely natural processes and laws that preclude any consideration of divine intentions or actions. It's best, most of them say, to keep religious (or even potentially theological) considerations outside of one's scientific method. Therefore, whenever you say "God did it!" to a materialist, he'll ask you if you want him to just throw off his smock, go home, and play Candy Crush the rest of his life. Most of them operate from a scientific philosophy, and arguably a broader worldview, that makes it impossible to mix any theism in with science.

On the other hand, theistic evolution is equally problematic from the direction of biblical logic. Even as a Christian, I think I can almost comprehend theistic evolution as technically plausible, yet it's still specious beyond rescue. Despite a history of many opposing interpretations of this and that in Scripture, biblical theists have always agreed on at least this biblical teaching: that God is in sovereign control of His own creative acts. Whether one is a "young earth" or "old earth" creationist, almost all agree that He is a God of order, intentionality, deliberation, purposive design. Despite our frail understanding of God and his sovereign acts, we affirm the Bible's teaching, beginning from Genesis 1:1 and onward, that there is absolutely nothing capricious in His own nature. Yet basic tenets of evolutionary science are random mutation advanced and preserved by blind, purposeless selection by nature alone. Randomness is a primary fabric explicitly woven into evolutionary science ever since Darwin. Any such "mindless" process contradicts the message that the Bible (and general revelation; a separate discussion) portrays about the Mindful, Deliberate Creator of Life. 

An example that might help one consider the workings of theistic evolution hypothetically could be to somehow picture God spinning a metaphysical roulette wheel for every potential event that would actualize in nature. (Because, remember, chance is a necessary ingredient of evolutionary theory.) It seems He would have to perpetually spin it and spin it till just the right interactionary events come up in successive order for Him to then hold in place. Well, this seems like a really confusing and unfathomably inefficient means for God to fulfill His creative goals. Of course one could say, "He's God! He's sovereignly free to be as inefficient as He likes. Furthermore, His ways are not our ways!"

Yes, but let's prefer the simplest answer when it begs us to and not let theistic evolution make us try to swallow a camel unnecessarily. Okham's Razor should make Christian theists cut right to the understanding that God simply speaks His plans into existence by the power of His command. More importantly, a necessarily simple interpretation of Scripture cuts right to it. Such as, "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He established the heavens" (Proverbs 3:19). It's intuitive to  reflect on creative power as a product of Wisdom and Understanding. But Randomness and Chance? Not a chance. 

There's my take on this deep subject. I admit I've read very little in recent years on theistic evolutionary arguments. So, as always, if I've missed something important, misrepresented, or got something flat wrong, please respond and we'll keep this conversation going. 

Creationism Kills the Economy. Really?

The recent, greatly anticipated debate between secular science apologist Bill Nye and young earth creationist Ken Ham certainly lived up to its billing. (Replay at debatelive.org.) My general take is each man argued his position on origins and geology pretty well. But the nitty-gritty arguments for old earth evolution or young earth biblical science are not the biggest headline. Broader warnings from Nye are what grabbed my attention the most.

Most importantly, Nye was not at all convincing when it came to his chief concern as a "mainstream" scientist out there in "the real world" who's greatly worried about science education of America's youth and it's effect on our nation's future.  Specifically, he failed at showing a viable connection between skepticism of evolution and a weakening American economy. That's because there is no connection.

To the contrary, Ham easily demonstrated that Darwin doubters, even young earth creationists, contribute greatly to the advancement of practical scientific technologies. Among many notable examples, the inventor of medicine's MRI. So when it comes to actionable breakthroughs in mathematical engineering--nothing if not real science--any beliefs that these pioneers might have related to historical science of biological origins or the age of the earth is utterly perfunctory. Fretting about such beliefs as some kind of economic threat is a childish distraction. Evolution critics can help advance pragmatic, exciting science and improve our way of life as much as anyone, as long as they do the work their respective specialties demand. And Chicken Little's dollar will not fall because of them.

Secularists often say there is insufficient evidence to connect religious beliefs with clearly demonstrable events perceivable by all who live in "the real world."  And so they confuse today's thinking, religious believers with the ancient mindset of, say, Ancient Greece; of believing in a capricious deity or in deities who magically zap the world with no intelligible rhyme, reason, or natural causation.

But it's Bill Nye who actually makes the muzziest of arguments, trying to force two entirely disjointed things together; doubts about Darwin and a collapse of the economy. Not really fitting for The Science Guy.

"Oprah's Favorites to Complete Your List"

I am reminded more of my lostness. I am incapable of determining the tasteful, the pertinent, the Good on my own. Were I to pray for the archetypal experience of tea drinking (I've always been a wayward coffee guy since my mother weened me from those white bottles of non-caffeination), or just to look into the matter for any tea drinker on my Christmas shopping list, Oprah, of course, would be the pedagogical authority on what is the Good tea set to purchase. The tea sets at which I now peer through the mall shop windows are not merely endorsed by O, they're actually her favorites.

Being an A-list celebrity must be exhausting. Your meditation constantly interrupted. Unenlightened seekers of wisdom like me endlessly scale your mountain of solace to have audience. You must fulfill our quests for the tasteful, the pertinent, the Good. Then, as it's stenciled on a storefront window, all can glean from "what is written." Mall pilgrims then glaze by, beyond, and, who knows, perhaps serendipitously into the church on any day but Sunday.

For you, Mr. or Ms. Consumer, it's not just your shopping list that can be completed. Now you absorb what before was universal secrecy. Mystery now neatly wraps the life worth living with such order and pretty paper that you'd never comprehended until the present moment. It's the moment when this year's (Curse last years!) styles, colors, and, of course, selection all come together to make inner sense. It all feels Good. So this object could be just the fit for the person on your list, who is of equal or greater value. Or so you tend to hope.

Heaven is made of stars, and we cast our spirits toward the stars--daytime and primetime--who descend from the fake living room sets or the celestial stadia. What paves the path that orients us heavenward bursts forth from the Scripture, Sermon and Evangelistic appeal of Branding. In Branding "we live, and move, and have our being." Come, sit and sip. No, be saturated by The Tea Set and so much more. But please stop in and drink today because supplies are limited. Equally mysterious.

My Comments (& Others) at KyDeptEd Hearing on Proposed New Ky. Science Standards

I addressed the Ky Dept of Ed at the public hearing in Frankfort Tue, July 23, 2013 about the Next Generation Science Standards. My 5 minutes of comments target the evolutionary biology aspect.
Here's the whole video of the KDE hearing. http://mediaportal.education.ky.gov/videos/kde-public-hearing-7232013/  I'm at 15:30 run time mark, the first one of about 20 or so to address the science standards. Nothing from me about fascism, murder, genocide, or the like, so I didn't make the Courier Journal's cut. You'll have to listen to some of the others to get that perspective.

Or, if you prefer to just read, my text is pasted below:

We and our Kentucky kids are being misled.  The Next Generation Science Standards do not reflect all the latest scientific research, at least the research on evolutionary theory—not by a long shot.  Much is not settled.  And we’re being misled to assume all opposition to this view of biology is a matter of religion.

Random mutation is not settled with Cambridge biochemist Douglas Axe.  He doesn’t talk about religion, but his research in the Journal of Molecular Biology discusses how amino acids fold up 3-dimensionally in just the right complex shapes to form the exact kind of proteins needed to construct and do work in the living cell. Axe says, among all the possible amino acid combinations, the probability of random mutation generating just one short protein capable of folding and remaining stable is roughly[[[[[[[ 1 in 10 to the 74th power, or ]]]]]]]]] one chance in a hundred trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.  Will our kids get to consider this or anything else that challenges macroevolution by chance mutation and natural selection?

Gerd Muller and Stuart Newman published essays by several scientists wondering how neo-Darwinism could explain the origin of epigenetic information.  [[[[[[[But when it comes to comparing  traits of various species,]]]]]]]] the NGS standards over-emphasize genetic similarities between species to prove macroevolution, and seem to overlook these crucial epigenetic factors, that is, microbiological factors that are not traced to genes, that determine how organs are shaped and body plans come together.  So, when it comes to evolutionary microbiology, the writers of the NGSS are behind the curve.

[[[[[[[The truth is there are a multitude of problems that have biologists branching off into all kinds of competing theories that have to forsake Darwin, but preserve at least some kind of evolutionary model.]]]]]]]

A group of leading evolutionary biologists, known as the Altenberg 16, completely without religious concerns [[[[[[except, perhaps, not to be seen as religious]]]]]]]], are explicitly calling to toss out the old for some new theory of evolution that might really work.  If you’re afraid to teach our kids the controversy and let them weigh some issues for themselves, then maybe we are raising them to be intellectually weak.

It’s been said these standards are unified by research in multiple fields.

Well, will our kids learn what’s going on in Paleontology?  Paul Chien, University of San Francisco.  He doesn’t talk about religion, but he’s researched how Pre-Cambrian rock strata in southern China have fossilized soft-bodied embryos.  This helps to prove that the great number of new species that suddenly arose in the Cambrian era have no evolutionary ancestors.  Darwin worried how the kind of fossil evidence that we have today could eventually threaten his theory.  Will our students learn this?

Mathematics:  John Lennox shows mathematic evidence to question seriously how blind nature itself could have produced novel semantic information necessary for the first biological life or new species to arise. Now Lennox does believe in God, but he’s also professor of mathematics at this quaint little college called Oxford.

There are Philosophers of Science who are somewhere between admitted agnosticism or atheism, and yet say challenges to Darwinism can have merit. These include Princeton-educated David Berlinski, who also makes mathematic challenges, and Princeton-educated Bradley Monton, now professor at University of Colorado at Boulder. New York University philosopher Thomas Nagel says the current evolutionary paradigm based on materialistic reductionism is bankrupt in explaining the existence of the mind. Will our kids’ minds get exposed to this?

Cosmology:  The late Allan Sandage, the twentieth century’s most influential astronomer, conceded, "The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. [[[[[I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together." He did eventually become a theist. (Cited by Lennox, 176). ]]]]]]]

I urge the KDE not only to reject the NGS Standards related to evolutionary biology, but also to review current state standards that do not adequately address these and other substantive disagreements among real scientists.  [[[[[[[These challenges are based on observable research and analysis, not religious agendas.  If you made your decision to pass the NGSS without weighing these scholars' arguments with at least a cursory understanding, then now’s the time.]]]]]]] Are our kids being prepared to wrestle through the controversy behind such an important issue while considering the different sides?  If not, they’re really not becoming educated.

This has everything to do with our school childrens’ understanding of their own significance and what purpose is behind their own lives.  It’s more than just science.  We can’t get this wrong.  The gravity of the theoretical domain of evolution demands that you burn the midnight oil in comprehending these arguments.  Because the writers of the NGSS are either misleading us or they themselves are underprepared and underinformed.

5:30  [[[[[[4:40]]]]]]

References:

Axe, DD.  “Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.” In J Mol Biol. 2004 Aug 27;341(5):1295-315.

Berlinski, David. “The Deniable Darwin.” Commentary 101 (1996): 19– 29.

_______. “On Assessing Genetic Algorithms.” Public lecture, “Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe” Conference, Yale University, November 4, 2000.

Britten, Roy J., and Eric H. Davidson. “Gene Regulation for Higher Cells: A Theory.” Science 165 (1969): 349-57.

Chien, Paul, J. Y. Chen, C. W. Li, and Frederick Leung. “SEM Observation of Precambrian Sponge Embryos from Southern China, Revealing Ultrastructures Including Yolk Granules, Secretion Granules, Cytoskeleton, and Nuclei.” Paper presented to the North American Paleontological Convention, University of California, Berkeley, June 26– July 1, 2001.

Lennox, John C. God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford:  Lion, 2009. Chapters 9-11.

Mazur, Suzan. The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry. Berkeley, CA:  North Atlantic Books, 2010.

Monton, Bradley. Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. Buffalo, NY:  Broadview, 2009.

Müller, Gerd B., and Stuart A. Newman.  “Origination of Organismal Form: The Forgotten Cause in Evolutionary Theory.”  In Organization of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, edited by G.B. Müller and S. A. Newman, 3-10. Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press, 2003.

Nagle, Thomas. Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. New York:  Oxford University Press, 2012.

Shapiro, Jams A. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science, 2011.